Gun Control: Liberty for Security

Ill answer the question:
Yes i do. However i do believe that there should remain gun regulations...

teamosil said:

Well, we've seen how effective insurgency is in Iraq. It's been a headache for sure. But, then again, the insurgents there are 10 times better armed than the American people. They have all kinds of serious military hardware. And, they're 10 times more experienced than the American people. And still, just a headache for the US military really.

Click to expand...

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.

Sarcogito said:

As a career military officer I disagree with you. Could the populace go toe to toe with the military and come out victorious? No. But do you think for one second that is how it would happen? Did you pay attention to Vietnam, Iraq or Afganistan? Guerilla warfare is effective against a stronger force. It wouldn't even be necessary to defeat the military. One need only make it not worth their trouble. I believe an armed populace makes it less likely that the need for such a conflict would ever even happen.

And no, I don't think such a thing is around the corner. But we don't know what the future has in store, even if it isn't in our lifetime.

Click to expand...

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.

Schutzengel said:

And yet somehow you forget that the iraqi insurgency was just that and was a serious thorn in the side of the US military even though they had fewer guns, much smaller numbers, and no moral ambiguity about shooting your own countrymen.

Click to expand...

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.

TurtleDude said:

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

Click to expand...

"Liberated" Honestly I had to laugh at this because it is so true... How easily they forget that more than 50% of the US military is the national guard... that means a lot of hardware that would have a hard time making it out of any locality... I can think of no fewer than 3 national guard armories within 15 miles of my home...

Thunder said:

tens of thousands of guns bought at gunshows have been used in crimes.

Click to expand...

Not what he was saying.

Zyphlin said:

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'"

Click to expand...

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.

teamosil said:

No... Of course not. For example, in North Korea there is no right to freedom of speech.

Click to expand...

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.

Schutzengel said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Neomalthusian said:

So you feel that rights are nothing more than a function of what a people's government says it is?

Click to expand...

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?

Neomalthusian said:

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?

Click to expand...

Don't deserve free speech rights? What? How does that follow from anything I said?

teamosil said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Zyphlin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

teamosil said:

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

teamosil said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Zyphlin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

TurtleDude said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

teamosil said:

Well, I think you're starting from the notion that constitutional rights are absolute.

Click to expand...

You'd be incorrect. Natural Rights are only absolute in having them. The Rights in the Constitution, by and large, as simply natural rights that are made considered protected governmental rights by nature of the social contract this country is founded upon...namely the Constitution. Said social contract lays down a specific way the contract can be altered. To me, altering it outside of that fashion is a violation of the contract and is something that should be fought against.

Rights can come into conflict with one another or with the practical necessities of keeping the country alive and well.

Click to expand...

At such times that Rights come into conflicts, one must look at whose particular action is violating the other individuals right.

As part of the social contract the country is founded on, our rights end where another individuals begin. This is why it's perfectly fine for me to own a gun, but the moment I seek to use that gun to infringe upon another individuals rights, then I am in the wrong.

But, regardless, some of them have to be more important than others because some of them are pre-requisites for the other.

Click to expand...

Disagree entirely. While they may be more important in terms of their affect on other rights, their over all importance from a constitutional and rights perspective are equal. It would be no less or more an atrocity for the government to revoke habeas corpus as it would be to revoke the right of assembly. Once you begin to deem a particular right as being unimportant and able to be countermanded in ways other than the constitutional process, all right's protected by the constitution become unimportant and hollow as any notion of protection based on the social contract goes entirely out the window.

Redress said:

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.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I should specify that I'm speaking from a political and constitutional perspective, not an entirely self focused individualized one. Someone who never has a desire to speak negatively about the government and doesn't care about the ability to speak freely doesn't magically reduce the importance in my mind from an over arching constitutional and governmental level of the 1st amendment.

Not to mention, even on the personal level, I go back to my previous arguments in terms of my own opinion on it. Even if I don't particularly have much use for an individual amendment of the constitution, once you deem one unimportant and able to be simply ignored or changed by the government at it's whim without following the Constitutional method, then you devalue all of them including the ones you do care about because they are no longer a firm foundation establishing a social contract declaring what the government is prohibited to do but rather hollow words that can be ignored on a whim by the government with no recourse on the part of the citizens.

Zyphlin said:

teamosil said:

But, regardless, some of them have to be more important than others because some of them are pre-requisites for the other.

Click to expand...

Disagree entirely. While they may be more important in terms of their affect on other rights, their over all importance from a constitutional and rights perspective are equal.

Click to expand...

He (he?) made a good point about due process though. Numerous other rights are denied via due process, so if due process is null and void, most of the others can become so as well. Due process is somewhat of a protector of numerous rights.

Zyphlin said:

Perhaps I should specify that I'm speaking from a political and constitutional perspective, not an entirely self focused individualized one. Someone who never has a desire to speak negatively about the government and doesn't care about the ability to speak freely doesn't magically reduce the importance in my mind from an over arching constitutional and governmental level of the 1st amendment.

Not to mention, even on the personal level, I go back to my previous arguments in terms of my own opinion on it. Even if I don't particularly have much use for an individual amendment of the constitution, once you deem one unimportant and able to be simply ignored or changed by the government at it's whim without following the Constitutional method, then you devalue all of them including the ones you do care about because they are no longer a firm foundation establishing a social contract declaring what the government is prohibited to do but rather hollow words that can be ignored on a whim by the government with no recourse on the part of the citizens.

Click to expand...

Rights from the constitution as a group are important. The value of one over the other is subjective. Their legal standing are all the same.

Getting tired so that may not make complete sense, but I think there is an important disticntion in here if I explained it properly. If not will try again tomorrow.

Neomalthusian said:

He (he?) made a good point about due process though. Numerous other rights are denied via due process, so if due process is null and void, most of the others become so as well.

Click to expand...

Even without due process, if they are constitutional protected rights then by the constitution the government shouldn't be able to restrict it. If they restrict them, that is not an issue of due process, it's an issue of that particular right. Get rid of due process, and the government infringing on your free speech by locking you up for speaking is still a violation of your right to free speech. Back to my original point, if they're willing to violate one constitutional amendment (freedom of speech) then the existence of another amendment (due process) is irrelevant to it because they could just as easily then ignore that one.

Which goes back to my point. Once you subjectively, from a legal and constitutional level, declare one constitutional amendment as unimportant and able to be infringed upon outside of the methods set out by the constitution, you essentially degrade all of them to an equal degree as you set down a precedent that the government can wantonly undermine and ignore the constitution as it see's fit.

Redress said:

Rights from the constitution as a group are important. The value of one over the other is subjective. Their legal standing are all the same.

Click to expand...

I agree here. However, when one is talking about the governments ability to infringe upon an amendment through the means of the legal system, I no longer believe one is talking about their subjective individual value on the amendment and instead believe they're speaking about the legal standing of it.

It makes perfect sense to me for someone to find one more important on a personal level. However, personal views don't dictate the law. So I agree with you, but it seems what Teamocil (love the name, just finished watching the series recently) was indicating was on a legal level, not a personal one.

Zyphlin said:

Even without due process, if they are constitutional protected rights then by the constitution the government shouldn't be able to restrict it. If they restrict them, that is not an issue of due process, it's an issue of that particular right. Get rid of due process, and the government infringing on your free speech by locking you up for speaking is still a violation of your right to free speech.

Click to expand...

Imprisonment is a restriction/denial of pretty much every overarching right except to life, so in the cases where a government does incarcerate you for its own secret reasons not subject to due process, it is a denial of multiple rights.

Neomalthusian said:

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?

Click to expand...

Yeah I think you've more or less summarized our positions correctly. To be absolutely clear, I think rights are incredibly important. There are many rights I would give my life to protect. But, I think it is the willingness to do that that secured those rights for us. They were not just there by default, they are things that we decided were so important that we were willing to go to war with the British to secure them and we put them down as the top priority in the new government we formed. Some day, we will decide that new things have risen to that level of importance. Some things we're already on the way to, like the right to privacy, and others that haven't even occurred to us yet. For example, maybe some day our lives will become so intertwined with computers built into our bodies and whatnot that unrestricted access to the network will be seen as one of the most fundamental rights without which no other right really means much.

Neomalthusian 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.

Click to expand...

I don't think rights are naturally occuring. I think they are concepts people come up with. Certainly I would prefer that North Koreans have a right to free speech, but in factual reality, they don't. That is a freedom they lack at present. There are many things that they could say which would land them in prison in no time. I don't think we can describe that situation as them having free speech.

teamosil said:

I don't think rights are naturally occuring.

Click to expand...

I disagree entirely with you here.
Sans a society of any kind, I can say whatever I want.
I can defend myself however I please.
I can live.
I can worship whoever I wish.
I can be around whoever I wish.

These things are inherent things I can simply do, not granted to be by any individual or society, but simply are. They the extent that I am able to do them myself.

Now, individuals may attempt to stop me from doing those things. They may attempt to keep me from exercising those rights. But they can not take those rights away from me permanently, short of death. If someone caught me in the wild, kept me in a cage, and bound my mouth....if I somehow escaped and was on my own, I could still live where I want, eat what I want, say what I want, all up to the capacity that I myself can make it happen, because they can't actually remove those rights from my person. They are inherent.

The problem is that, in nature, there is no notion that one's right's end where another's begin. I have a right to protect myself and to live somewhere. Another person has a right to eat and to live as well. That person may very well want to live where I live. He's well within his natural rights to take my land, and I'm well within my natural rights to defend myself and stop him from doing that.

As such, we enter into societies through a social contract. There's two ways this typically happens. Either we as a people CHOOSE to enter it, or an individual/group has enough power to FORCE us to enter it. Once entered it, that social contract establishes how those individual natural rights are protected/restricted and potentially works to create other, governmental rights (which, unlike natural rights, are not inherent but dependent on the social contract).

I can say what I want, worship who I want, live where I want, eat what I want, be around who I want in nature without the support or framework of any government. Those rights are inherent naturally.

teamosil said:

I don't think rights are naturally occuring. I think they are concepts people come up with.

Click to expand...

That's like saying sex is not natural, it's just something people decide to do. Rights are things that are so inherent that it's a no brainer. They are natural in that there is a pervasive, deep, visceral, even instinctual sense of unfairness to think of someone being denied it by another's interference. These can essentially be boiled down to to life, liberty and property.