ib1yysguy
Junior Member
I believe we are getting damn close to it..
Provide specifics, please.
I believe we are getting damn close to it..
Provide specifics, please.
Less than clear? Only to a fuzz brained idiot who hides themselves from the realities of our history.The intent of the founders is less than clear and those on each side of the issue can point to plenty of historical context to support their positions. Take a look at the dissent in the latest SCOUTS case for example.
This is why I hate original intent arguments as a general matter. People on either side can almost always dig up a modicum of historical evidence to support their positions that is largely results oriented rather than an effort to get to the truth to the extent that there is only one.
No one has the right to deliberately put others in danger without just cause. Deliberately causing panic, which is known to result in unnecessary injury, is such a case.Why do we all agree that freedom of speach can be infringed, but the right to bear arms cannot.
In the first place, yes a popularly elected government CAN be tyrannnical against the minority that did not elect them.I'd be curious what your interpretation of "tyranny" is. If a gov't is popularly elected (like some current examples I can think of), that term doesn't really apply.
sure it does. A body politic can be voted in with 90% of the popular vote and still be tyrannical against the other 10%. Part of what the constitution is supposed to do is protect that 10% from majority oppression.
There is but ONE guarantee our government never becomes a full blown tyranny, and that is to maintain the right - and capability - to forcefully revolt if/when they ever try. Take away the right to arms NOW because you feel "safe" under the current government, a future tyranny sure as hell ain't gonna give that right back before they take over.
It would be an utterly futile attempt. A much better strategy than the carnage and anarchy you consider necessary would simply be to educate people to have respect for the minority - which is why most democracies are stable. Not because of guns. All the guns in the world do not guarantee freedom, and proponents of fascism can use them just as equally as proponents of liberalism.
we are NOT a democracy, we are a Republic..don't they teach that in school anymore..
They've never taught that in school. Only conservatives see the difference. "Republic" is where evil conservatism is enshrined by a constitution, democracy is allowed to change at will between conservatism and freedom.
well too bad for you....we still live in a REPUBLIC..our founding fathers specified it that way to protect us from people like you and your silly ideas.
Explain why you think that.It would be an utterly futile attempt.
Education is outlawed and perpetrators caught teaching about the old ways of freedom and liberty are shot on sight. Now what do you do?A much better strategy than the carnage and anarchy you consider necessary would simply be to educate people to have respect for the minority - which is why most democracies are stable. Not because of guns.
The only guarantee is slavery or death if you do not fight for your freedoms.All the guns in the world do not guarantee freedom, and proponents of fascism can use them just as equally as proponents of liberalism.
Revolution has no value? Ever heard of the American Revolution? You know, the one that created the nation you live in? You are either a troll or the most profoundly ignorant fuck in the universe. Do you even have the ability to walk upright?How is this in any way a guarantee against tyranny? A small minority with guns could just as easily take control and impose fascism as rise up and kill millions of people to stop the horrors of gay marriage from being unleashed upon the population. It's an idiotic idea, the idea that revolution protects freedom, because revolution is in no way, shape, or form connected with freedom. Revolution has no values.
No one has the right to deliberately put others in danger without just cause. Deliberately causing panic, which is known to result in unnecessary injury, is such a case.
However, to address the issue of "yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater", no one proposes barring you from entering the theater and speaking, just in case you may want to yell "fire". Usurpation of rights in advance of their abuse under the excuse of public safety is the hallmark of tyranny.
The mere possession of firearms of any kind is no more a threat to you than someone walking into a crowded theater.
The fire example is stupid, you cannot go into someone's private home and yell fire or perhaps swear words, or use your gun in any manner or even bring it in if they deign it not welcome. Nor can you go in a private movie theater and do any of that.
Private property rights are a natural check on the extremes of other rights.
guns are for skinny rednecks who can't fight.