View Poll Results: In general, do you agee with the quote in the context of gun regulations/bans?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    23 82.14%
  • No

    4 14.29%
  • Other

    1 3.57%
Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 128

Thread: Gun Control: Liberty for Security

  1. #81
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Gun Control: Liberty for Security

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    So we have someone in the category of "Some Constitutional rights are important and some are less important to the point of not even being part of our 'liberty'"
    Well, of course some are more important than others. Obviously establishing that there is a right to free speech, for example, is more crucial than the right not to have troops quartered in your home today, right? That doesn't mean we need to get rid of the less important ones or something.

    As for whether it is "liberty" or not, I guess that just depends how expansive of a definition of liberty you go by. The "right" to have a couch would fall inside some very expansive definitions of liberty and not others. I'd put it in that category.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  2. #82
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Gun Control: Liberty for Security

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    No... Of course not. For example, in North Korea there is no right to freedom of speech.
    So you feel that rights are nothing more than a function of what a people's government says it is? In other words, you don't feel that the people of North Korea deserve any speech/expression rights beyond what their government is willing to permit?

    That's kind of sad. Because I think the people of North Korea do have a right to free speech/expression, but that that right is being repressed by their government.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 07-24-12 at 12:50 AM.

  3. #83
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Gun Control: Liberty for Security

    Quote Originally Posted by Schutzengel View Post
    The TOTAL iraqi population is 32 million... texas alone would be more of a problem than iraq was... all I can do is just shake my head at this statement... you have no idea what asymetrical warfare is... And apparently you forget that WE invented it.
    The insurgents in Iraq have been fighting various insurgencies against brutal dictators, the USSR and the US for their entire lives. Some of them are like tenth generation lifetime insurgents. And they have rocket launchers and land mines and chemical weapons and all kinds of stuff we don't.

    Sure, the population of Iraq is smaller, but they pulled in pretty much all the insurgents from the entire middle east. And, we only had around 1/3 of our military there at the peak. A serious revolution in the US would meet the entire US military.
    Last edited by teamosil; 07-24-12 at 12:54 AM.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  4. #84
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Gun Control: Liberty for Security

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    So you feel that rights are nothing more than a function of what a people's government says it is?
    Rights are rules that people decide to make particularly fundamental. Which things people consider rights and which things they don't change slowly over time and more significantly from place to place. Of course humans decide what rights they want to recognize. What else would?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    In other words, you don't feel that the people of North Korea deserve any speech/expression rights beyond what their government is willing to permit?
    Don't deserve free speech rights? What? How does that follow from anything I said?
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  5. #85
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Gun Control: Liberty for Security

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Well, of course some are more important than others. Obviously establishing that there is a right to free speech, for example, is more crucial than the right not to have troops quartered in your home today, right? That doesn't mean we need to get rid of the less important ones or something.
    An argument could be made either way, and often is, which is why I asked where people come down on it.

    You can easily say that the right to not have troops quartered in your home is just as important as the right to free speech, even if it's highly unlikey to be USEFUL in the modern day. Important, and useful, are two different things.

    One could also argue that all of the constitutional amendments are equally important, due to the belief that if you begin to subjectively apply greater or less importance onto an individual amendment you effectively neuter the constitution and turn it into shifting sands rather than solid stone in terms of a foundation for our code of laws. Once you establish that constitutional amendments can be ignored simply because some feel that they're not as "important" today, you establish precedent that the government can simply choose to ignore or chip away at Constitutional amendments without following the methods to do so set out by the constitution.

  6. #86
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Gun Control: Liberty for Security

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    An argument could be made either way, and often is, which is why I asked where people come down on it.

    You can easily say that the right to not have troops quartered in your home is just as important as the right to free speech, even if it's highly unlikey to be USEFUL in the modern day. Important, and useful, are two different things.

    One could also argue that all of the constitutional amendments are equally important, due to the belief that if you begin to subjectively apply greater or less importance onto an individual amendment you effectively neuter the constitution and turn it into shifting sands rather than solid stone in terms of a foundation for our code of laws. Once you establish that constitutional amendments can be ignored simply because some feel that they're not as "important" today, you establish precedent that the government can simply choose to ignore or chip away at Constitutional amendments without following the methods to do so set out by the constitution.
    Well, I think you're starting from the notion that constitutional rights are absolute. But that isn't true, nor could it be, in practice. Rights can come into conflict with one another or with the practical necessities of keeping the country alive and well. The notion of a mathematical kind of objective set of constitutional rights that are imposed absolutely isn't a reality and never could be. In practical reality you could only have one absolute right. Any more than that would create irreconcilable conflicts. The struggle for strong constitutional rights is much more nuanced and complex than that.

    But, regardless, some of them have to be more important than others because some of them are pre-requisites for the other. For example, without habeas corpus or due process rights, no other right really means anything. If you have a right to free speech, but the government can just lock you up without giving a reason, then that free speech right is meaningless.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  7. #87
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Gun Control: Liberty for Security

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Rights are rules that people decide to make particularly fundamental. Which things people consider rights and which things they don't change slowly over time and more significantly from place to place. Of course humans decide what rights they want to recognize. What else would?
    Rights are so basic that they don't in fact really change much with time. I have a right to life. You can't deny me my life. That is murder, and it has been against the law since a such thing as law existed. I have a right to property. If you take my property it is theft, and that has been lawless since well before the ten commandments, and likely since any such thing as law existed. Liberty. I have a right to that, though it hasn't always been a right because people across many civilizations used to own slaves, but I think we agree about that. We have other rights, such as religion, expression, arms, in this country anyway, which is something that Americans tend to be proud of. You on the other hand think they're all up for grabs, based on the whims of the attitudes du jour, is that right?

    Don't deserve free speech rights? What? How does that follow from anything I said?
    You think North Koreans don't naturally have a right to free speech because their government doesn't allow them to speak freely. I think they do have a right to free speech but their government represses it, and that is contemptible but it doesn't change that they naturally have a right to it.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 07-24-12 at 01:02 AM.

  8. #88
    Educator Schutzengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Last Seen
    04-20-13 @ 11:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    719

    Re: Gun Control: Liberty for Security

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Not worth their trouble implies an occupying force. I think you're talking about a revolutionary force trying to take the country by force because they were unable to win at the polls. That isn't something the elected government would throw their hands up in the air and walk away from, it is something they would crush to a fine powder.



    Not sure what you mean exactly. The insurgency in Iraq is better equipped than the American population by far, much, much, more experienced at insurgency, AND has fewer moral qualms than an American resistance probably would. And still, just an annoyance to the US military...

    Again, I think that if you really want a chance against the US military, even just as insurgents, the way to do it would have to start with slashing the military budget.

    Have you spent a day in a military uniform? the iraqi insurgency just a thorn? hell the iraqi army was just a thorn... better trained? better equiped? Seriously? do you know how many combat veterans are in the US? Just the VFW has a membership of 2.1 million... all of which have been in combat... and those same soldiers that you talk about that have been fighting against the "Thorn" iraqi insurgency... most of them are civilians now... just saying... and there is that little thing about the US having some 250,000,000 guns ... in civilian hands... Just concealed carry there are currently 8.6 million concealed carry permits in the US... total standing and reserve personel puts the US military at 2.8 Million... they are still out gunned 3:1 just with concealed carry... you can continue to talk out of your colon but it is obvious you have not a clue.

  9. #89
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:47 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,315
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Gun Control: Liberty for Security

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    An argument could be made either way, and often is, which is why I asked where people come down on it.

    You can easily say that the right to not have troops quartered in your home is just as important as the right to free speech, even if it's highly unlikey to be USEFUL in the modern day. Important, and useful, are two different things.

    One could also argue that all of the constitutional amendments are equally important, due to the belief that if you begin to subjectively apply greater or less importance onto an individual amendment you effectively neuter the constitution and turn it into shifting sands rather than solid stone in terms of a foundation for our code of laws. Once you establish that constitutional amendments can be ignored simply because some feel that they're not as "important" today, you establish precedent that the government can simply choose to ignore or chip away at Constitutional amendments without following the methods to do so set out by the constitution.
    How important an amendment is, or a clause in the constitution, or even a legal right given simply by law is entirely subjective. I do not own a gun nor do I plan to, so the second amendment is entirely unimportant to me personally.

    As to your initial question: we give up certain liberties all the time. The fact I cannot go down to the corner gun and pawn shop(yes, there is one there) and buy a rockeye to strap to a cessna and drop on a field somewhere is a limit to my liberties(and if it was legal, I would want to do it...rockeyes are cool!). That limit is also a good idea. I do not believe there has ever been a society with complete liberty, there are always certain concessions to liberty.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  10. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    SE Asia
    Last Seen
    07-12-14 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    2,333

    Re: Gun Control: Liberty for Security

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    ten times better armed

    you are talking out your six again. and just see what happens if we were invaded

    lots of military hardware in NG arsenals would be Liberated

    and lots of our civilians are very experienced. take my nephew-he's had 42 months of combat over there in the Rangers and then the special forces. he will be a civilian within a few years.

    and there are thousands like him-teh best trained combat infantry in the world
    True. I was in Libya at the time of the revolution and what you saw was veterans and deserters leading and training the civilian rebels. And they were nowhere as skilled as our veterans. How many veteran NCOs do you think live in America? How many do you think would desert the military if it turned on its own people?

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •