******GUNS******

Edit: Nevermind, I see you populated the poll now. At first it was empty.

I may delete the poll.

It was an empty OP with an empty poll. So I was like: "Okay?" Now I see there are two voting options. So I voted.

can an object be a right?


Rights theory. Something anybody in the Guns forum understands?

- No
- No evidence to date, but the case is still open

You know, the people? The same people mentioned in the First and Fourth Amendments, dutifully spelled out in the Second Amendment as well.

I want to transmit in the way that all can receive. Conversation and the sharing of thoughts and ideas is my goal.

edited for spelling.

You don't offer a moronic false dichotomy.

Right/privilege.

That's a moronic false dichotomy.

I've never understood this fixation on "privileges". Things that people choose to do, in free and democratic societies, are not "privileges". Noooo, driving is not a privilege. It is an exercise of the right to liberty, among other things. And it is subject to reasonable limitations. All rights are.

Eating pizza for breakfast is not a privilege. Crossing the street is not a privilege. Possessing a firearm is not a privilege.

We all have the right to do whatever we bloody well please, subject to reasonable limitations, which means subject to limitations that the state is able to justify based on the principles that apply to limitations of the exercise of rights.

So what would we have accomplished here if 100% of people who wasted time on this poll said "Right"?

Nada. That's what.

But I'm sure you're just hoping that some misguided soul, who thinks that firearms possession should be subject to stringent conditions, will come along and say "privilege", thinking that "right" means "unfettered exercise of right".

And then will you be happy? If not you, somebody will.

It won't all fit in the subject line. However, you may now consider me properly chastised. Happy?

have a right to defend themselves. Cats have claws and teeth. Horses can run. Quail can explode out of the brush. Tool using mammals with opposable thumbs use devices to do things, including self defense. Firearms work wonderfully for that.

so you just picked a random post to say it to?

:rofl:

and especially no mainstream Liberal, has ever questioned the 2nd Amendment "right" to own a gun. This poll is basically a non-starter, because it asks for an opinion about settled law.

The majority of the arguments between otherwise congenial Americans about gun ownership deal with "rights" vs. "responsibilities" and basic common sense. The die-hard NRA fanatics will not take YES for a fucking answer, and insist on rubbing other Americans' noses in their precious "rights" by being obnoxious and confrontational, and exhibiting poor judgment.

The danger for the NRA crowd, is that "otherwise congenial" Americans just may start to legally restrict current local-jurisdiction open-carry laws.

There are plenty of people who believe no right to own firearms exists in any shape or form.

There are also those who believe any right is as a collective in state militias ans since states don't use militias that right doesn't exist.

Both of those theories were argued in DC v. Heller. Sure it is settled law now but DC v. Heller was less than 2 years ago.

Just because it is settled law doesn't mean everyone accepts it. Generally it takes the populace a generation to completely accept any change. Prior to Heller virtually every single gun control groups stated EXACTLY that the second amendment guarantees no individual right to own a firearm.

Hell there are people on DU who believe no individual right exists and that is post Heller so to claim "no mainstream liberal" has ever denied a right doesn't exist is a complete fabrication.

Maybe you accept it, maybe 80%ish of Americans accept it but not everyone does.

plenty of people who don't believe that we landed on the moon. Many of them carry guns to public venues.

How would you prefer I phrase it? Communication is the goal.

Iverglas is the master of semantic wrangling.

Any poll that provides even the slightest possibility of a pro-firearm response will be damned as being syntactically incorrect in some way.

political philosophy were "semantics".

You'd still fail the course, of course.

.

One of the things that may destroy this nation.

:eyes:

Long before you decide free speech is "unafordable?"

Festooning one's self with firearms at a political event

is analogous to

Free speech?


I don't think so.


Festooning one's self with firearms at a political event

is analogous to

Standing on a streetcorner making racist remarks to every person of colour who wans by / vulgar sexual remarks to every woman who walks by / bigoted remarks to every Muslim who walks by ...


I think so.



Long before you decide free speech is "unafordable?"

Any estimate of when you might decide to be candid in your discourse?

Wearing a firearm at a political event simply makes the political statement that you keep and bear arms and are willing to use those arms to defend your political viewpoint.

It has nothing to do with making a racial or sexual or bigoted remark, unless that is the political viewpoint being espoused.

The firearm simply says, "I will back up my position with force."

A dozen such people? Lunatics.

A few thousand? Revolutionaries.

FESTOONING YOURSELF WITH FIRARMS

is NOT

analogous to FREE SPEECH.


Claim it's analogous to whatever ACT you want to claim it's analogous to.

It is not analogous to a fucking CONCEPT.

It is AN ACT.


Dog have mercy.



The firearm simply says, "I will back up my position with force."

If you say so.

And if that's what it's saying, it is the height of fucking FASCISM, when it's being said by an adherent of a particular political ideology making that statement to an elected leader in a democracy and members of the public who support that leader and his policies.

You do yourself proud, you do.


A dozen such people? Thugs.

A few thousand? Lots of thugs.

FESTOONING YOURSELF WITH FIRARMS

is NOT

analogous to FREE SPEECH.

Festooning yourself with firearms WHILE ENGAGING IN A POLITICAL DEMONSTRATION most certainly constitutes free speech.

There is little difference between participating in a political demonstration holding up a sign that says, "I believe in the 2nd Amendment" and holding up a rifle.

They both say pretty much the same thing.

Claim it's analogous to whatever ACT you want to claim it's analogous to.

It is not analogous to a fucking CONCEPT.

It is AN ACT.

Semantics. Burning a flag is an act. It has also been protected as freedom of expression.


The firearm simply says, "I will back up my position with force."

If you say so.

I do say so, thank you very much.

And if that's what it's saying, it is the height of fucking FASCISM, when it's being said by an adherent of a particular political ideology making that statement to an elected leader in a democracy and members of the public who support that leader and his policies.

Iverglas, believe it or not, I agree with you. These people are politically misguided.

A dozen such people? Thugs.

A few thousand? Lots of thugs.

LOL.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=248325&mesg_id=248350

rinse, repeat

A discussion is usually about something.

That is what this one is about.

Love how you totally ignored my comparison to flag burning, which is also an act that is protected "speech".

If the act of burning a flag, or hanging someone in effigy as part of a political demonstration is speech, then certainly the act of carrying a gun as part of a political demonstration is also speech.

in the first fucking place.

If you want to spout nonsense, is there any chance you could find someone else's posts to do it in "reply" to?


If the act of burning a flag, or hanging someone in effigy as part of a political demonstration is speech, then certainly the act of carrying a gun as part of a political demonstration is also speech.

Jimbo Dandy.


Now, would you like to pretend that that is ALL IT IS?

The act of burning a flag is also a polluting act.

The act of festooning yourself in firearms at a public event is also ______________________________.


Does the fact that something is "speech" make it GOOD?

Nope. So you feel free to denounce it, 'k? Just like I'm sure you'd denounce the speech spewing from the mouths of racists and misogynists and homophobes and bigots ...

:rofl:

Y'know. Free speech.

love how you ignored WHAT MY POST WAS ABOUT in the first fucking place.

If you want to spout nonsense, is there any chance you could find someone else's posts to do it in "reply" to?

I joined at the part where you made the erroneous statement:

Festooning one's self with firearms at a political event

is analogous to

Free speech?

I don't think so.

You said that "festooning one's self with firearms" is not free speech. This is incorrect, so I joined the conversation at that point to point out the error in your statement.

Then you went on to say:

Claim it's analogous to whatever ACT you want to claim it's analogous to.

It is not analogous to a fucking CONCEPT.

It is AN ACT.

You said that "festooning one's self with firearms" is again not free speech, but is "an act".

I merely pointed out that acts, especially in the context of a political demonstration are often symbolic, and thus an expression of a political ideology, and thus protected under the freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Carrying a firearm in the context of a political demonstration is a symbolic act no different than the symbolic act of hanging someone in effigy or burning a flag.

Now, would you like to pretend that that is ALL IT IS?

I have made no such claims. I am simply correcting your erroneous assertion that the act of carrying a firearm in the context of a political demonstration is not free speech.

Does the fact that something is "speech" make it GOOD?

I have made no such claims. I am simply correcting your erroneous assertion that the act of carrying a firearm in the context of a political demonstration is not free speech.

Nope. So you feel free to denounce it, 'k? Just like I'm sure you'd denounce the speech spewing from the mouths of racists and misogynists and homophobes and bigots ...

I already have, several times now in several different posts.

These people are politically misguided. Now is not the time to be making political statements using firearms. The time when we should have seen such statements was during the last 8 years of the past administration, in defiance of the suspension of habeus corpus, torture, pervasive domestic surveillance, and rendition.

In short, I applaud the use of firearms to make a political statement, because they are the final arbiter of justice that our founders intended the people to have at their disposal.

But I think these people are protesting the wrong cause. I mean really. These people sat quiet through the most massive rape of liberty this country has arguably ever seen, and now they get upset because the government wants to provide health care to everyone? Ridiculous.

It's spreading.

I ask myself. And no, "yahoo" is not a masculine noun.

And it's not my fault if the racist, misogynist, right-wing gun thugs of the world just seem to be mainly men, is it?

Let's see more of them and their antics. Take yer guns to a health care fight. Looks good.

Didnt think so. When you have it all figured out, c'mon back and tell us how to do it. Till then, we dont need your input, but thanks for playing.

Once you fix yours, it will be all done.

You want to be careful not to buy a condo downstairs from where I live.

I like to overflow the tub. Water all over the place, makes me happy. It tends to leak through the floor, and then the ceiling below, and then kinda wreck any electronics in its way. But that's life. What I do with my water is my business. If you didn't like it, you'd have to waterproof your ceiling, I guess.

It makes me fear for the human race.

But reading the dunderheadedness, whether geunine or fake, makes me laugh.

Dunderheadedness like this itself is hilarious.

But faked dunderheadedness? Absolutely uproarious.


And hey, I'm still trying to figure out whether one of you (don't ask me who) actually didn't know what a dunderhead is ...

Your cats will be okay.

right-o then. Old chum.

Also, spell-check is your friend.

clearly laid out in the constitution.

but a duty.

It is my "duty" to carry a fucking weapon in public? Are you serious?

The last I heard, a "right" allowed choice and common sense. If we were under attack by Switzerland, I just might consider carrying a gun, but the last I heard our government, or our military and police forces, have not declared a public emergency.

from the gun grabbers.

in your NRA-influenced head. The sky is NOT falling, and your government is not your enemy.

or those who populate said entity?

Say, today.

You had something you wanted to say?

because we have checks and balances that do not require an exchange of gunfire to settle disputes. It's called "Democracy."

Or does it actually mean something, and might have an effect on the meaning of the words that follow?

It's explaining the rationale behind the next phrase. you could almost read it " BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
But because it's just a clause you can take it out W/out changing the meaning of the sentence. Like so "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in fringed"

The BOR does not grant me a single right. My natural rights exist 100% independent of the Constituion the government didn't give them to me and the government can't take them away

BTW I couldn't vote but I think my opinion is pretty clear

Just like any other "whereas" clause. However, it does give some guidance and understanding to the intention of the primary clause.

that with every right, comes responsibilities.