namelesstavern.net

Last I checked, getting a driver's license was not a constitutional right. But maybe I'm splitting hairs or you just missing my point entirely.

Psychiatric evaluation before voting? I can't see any foreseeable problem there unless you can Eziekial.

Well for abortion this is already under way of sorts. I don't recall the state but one of them just implemented a law to force women to watch an abortion or something like this prior to the operation as a last hope to scare them to change their mind.

As for voting, so few vote already, I'm ok with the crazies vote

Snero wrote:hose quotes are also pretty meaningless, and so is the comparison to nazi germany. This isnt the mid 1900s and certainly not before that

havent you ever heard of the whole 'history repeats itself?'

Or 'how about he who has all the guns makes the rules.'


How about 'Power Corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts absolutely'


Trust me I dont trust the government esp now. and the day we surrender the 2nd amendment is the day the we as a nation has stepped away completely as a constitutional republic and become s true totalitarian government.


Please tell me whats left after the repeal the 2nd amendment? whats to stop them from say....removing the 1st?

Its amazing people like you said the same thing right before Hitler's rise to power. "It could not happen again"

Snero I know you mean well, but hear me when I say 'We the People' wont mean as much when the government has nothing left to fear from its populace.

I dont trust the government and I dont trust others to protect me. so till the day I die, I will teach my kids how to shoot and Ill be carrying. When the hippies and peaceniks invade my humble abode to remove them remember, I use hollow points for my nine and wad cutters for my 380.

Kahar I thought the entire argument was regarding hand guns, not the removal of the 2nd amm.

Being a prior military man, you should know already the government doesn't fear us today anyway.

yeah true. but if you think that it will stop at removing handguns I think you have the water pipe set past stun.

Eziekial wrote:Last I checked, getting a driver's license was not a constitutional right. But maybe I'm splitting hairs or you just missing my point entirely.

You're not splitting hairs. You're comparing apples to watermelons.

Just the same, gun control doesn't have to have anything to do with type or quantity. It has to to with personal integrity. Yes it's a constitutional right (unlike driving), so is freedom of speech. You wanna exercise that go down to the White House and say 'I'm here to murder George Bush'...then see how fast freedom of speech lands you in a holding cell.

This isn't rocket science, guns are dangerous mechanical devices that should be regulated. Control doesn't mean ban...I think the kneejerk reactionary gun lobby should really get their heads around that. There are people that should simply not be able to have guns.

And yes I'm a gun owner, in New Jersey. I had to jump through flaming hoops to get my P99...and that's a good thing.

SS~

Harrison wrote:Psychiatric evaluation before voting? I can't see any foreseeable problem there unless you can Eziekial.

Not unless you have the crazies grading the evaluations

And as for comparing apples to watermelons, what makes your anology relevant in discrediting my assertion? Isn't possession passive (apple) while shouting threats at someone active (watermelon)? Or are you trying to imply that by shear ownership I am just as guilty of murder as that guy in VT?

Not to pick on just you. I get a strange sense that many "liberal" thinkers tend to bend their heads in such a fashion and cast all non-believers into the fire. It is usually they who are the first to saying things like "the world is full of stupid people, why arm them???!!! All hell will break loose if you do!"
It is a veiled condemnation of our entire society and honestly, it's more than a little vile. Anyway, I have drill this weekend so I will check back often and if I get some free time (ha) will be happy to try to debate this in a serious manner. Lets put away the sharp sticks for now. If not, have a great weekend.

Harrison wrote:Psychiatric evaluation before voting? I can't see any foreseeable problem there unless you can Eziekial.

Not only psych evaluation, but vote of someone who has higher education, in fields other than crafts(painting/dancing/film/int design), should hold more power than Joe Shmo at local oil change.

Wow nice retort Ziek. Apples to watermelons simply means the difference between Constitutional right and statutory privilege They are very different. But you know that. And so the on the scales watermelon trumps apple.

As far as your assertion that I would cast everyone into the fire, well that would be self defeating. However, there are people, quite a few. I've met them, I worked 16 years in the mental health field. There are people, that should not have access to firearms. And we do nothing about it.

There are people, who desire firearms for the purpose of doing harm to themselves or others. They arent hunters, they arent home protectors. No, they want to purchase a gun to kill either themselves or someone else. Is it such a stretch to identify those people and deny them legal access to firearms?

I don't think of this point of view as liberal, it's just common sense to me. At any rate I'll look in again to see what you think Ziek. Be well.

SS~

Ganzo wrote:

Harrison wrote:Psychiatric evaluation before voting? I can't see any foreseeable problem there unless you can Eziekial.

Not only psych evaluation, but vote of someone who has higher education, in fields other than crafts(painting/dancing/film/int design), should hold more power than Joe Shmo at local oil change.

Why? Are some people more equal then others?

Lueyen wrote:

Ganzo wrote:

Harrison wrote:Psychiatric evaluation before voting? I can't see any foreseeable problem there unless you can Eziekial.

Not only psych evaluation, but vote of someone who has higher education, in fields other than crafts(painting/dancing/film/int design), should hold more power than Joe Shmo at local oil change.

Why? Are some people more equal then others?

Some people are better balanced than others.

All animals are equal, some are just more equal than others.

-Arlos

arlos wrote:All animals are equal, some are just more equal than others.

-Arlos

Good book...

Lueyen wrote:

Ganzo wrote:

Harrison wrote:Psychiatric evaluation before voting? I can't see any foreseeable problem there unless you can Eziekial.

Not only psych evaluation, but vote of someone who has higher education, in fields other than crafts(painting/dancing/film/int design), should hold more power than Joe Shmo at local oil change.

Why? Are some people more equal then others?

Equality in rights don't automatically grants equality in intelligence. Your right to vote should be proportionate to your IQ. I love to watch movies, but I'd rather political decision be made by people who actually do something to advance our civilization.

Ganzo wrote:
Equality in rights don't automatically grants equality in intelligence. Your right to vote should be proportionate to your IQ

Heck, why even allow people to vote? Let's just get the smartest guy out there, and have him make all the decisions!

I'm not advocating dictatorship, just democracy of science

Ganzo wrote:Equality in rights don't automatically grants equality in intelligence. Your right to vote should be proportionate to your IQ. I love to watch movies, but I'd rather political decision be made by people who actually do something to advance our civilization.

Education does not indicate intelligence in a linear fashion either. Someone with a very high IQ can still be lacking in common sense. What looks good on paper often times doesn't work well in the real world.

As far as advancing our civilization Joe Shmo at the local oil change plays an important role, if not the high profile one. Joe Shmo keeps our civilization moving so that it can advance, who are you or anyone else to say that his contribution to the betterment of society is any less then someone else's? With out the Joe Shmo's of our country our economy and infrastructure would come to a grinding halt overnight. The surgeon who saves lives everyday might not be able to make it to the operating room because his or her car broke down due to an improper or non existent oil change. Joe's role may be one of support, but does that make it any less important? Would you presume that the surgeon knows better safety precautions in vehicle mechanics then Joe? Would Joe be better off if the surgeon dictated methods and precautions in Joe's shop, even if Joe disagrees based on experience?

With a representative democracy we already have what you are suggesting to a large extent, in that we appoint people who are ideally better qualified then your average person to tackle the issues we face. With a 1 person 1 vote situation these representatives are beholden to the interests of everyone and the motivation to do what is in the best interest by enlarge is there. If you remove this then you place abnormal importance on one group vs another, and although it would be nice to take the altruistic stance that a representative would still do their best to keep in mind their less important constituency, the reality proven time after time throughout history is that the altruistic mindset doesn't happen because of human nature. Again the difference between what looks grand on paper doesn't work so well once implemented. Various forms of government look fantastic in theory yet every time they are practiced they completely fail due to human nature and personal interest set above the public interest.

SS,
I can't answer if it's a stretch to identify people who are mental unstable. I would wager it would be but I'm no expert. All I can really point to as evidence of the difficult an individuals mental condition are the thousands of court cases that are litigated on this very issue. Do crimes of passion fall under this catagory? What about the concept of "temporary" insanity? Is there such a thing? If so, I have yet to hear or read of a doctor who claims to have the knowledge of selecting people who are ripe for being crazy.
Yes, I agree that certain people certain people should not have guns but my arguement is freedom is not without risks. It's pointed out in numerous ways how certain things that do us harm are still legal because the alternative would be to subjugate yourself to the state. We already do this to an alarming degree in the name of "National Security" which many liberal minded people on this board are quick to denounce as authoritarian and rightly so. I, for one, am not willing to trust our government and willingly grant it more control over my life.
As such, we are all citizens and we must all value and respect each other for better or worse. I tried to drive this point home before but have been unsuccessful with analogy so I'm spelling it all out here. If we allow ourselves to be catagorized into sane and insane who makes the list? As it stands we already have restrictions on who can own a firearm. There are countless laws placing restrictions on just OWNING a gun. Why? Because when it comes to this particular point on our freedom we are guilty and have a burden to prove our innocence.
And as far as the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment? I think it's perfectly clear that our country was established on the basis of personally liberty and that liberty comes at a cost in that it must be defended from the reach of government. Even our own has shown the signs of totalitarianism which brings letters and litigation from the ACLU but that does little to confort me against the draw of power that government brings. One need only to look south to Venezuela to see how quickly a leader can go from one end of the spectrum to the other. I believe we are well on our way to losing the little liberty we have left and there will come a day when the only method of getting that liberty back will be through the business end of a gun.

I think we agree more than disagree Ziek. Although your last point doesn't inspire me. I'm not a big fan of violent revolution. I do agree that many of our freedoms are being eroded and I certainly see your points about who is to judge a fellow citizen.

I really can't argue with you much without repeating myself.

SS~

I believe we do too. Actually, I've discovered that many time what seperates ideology is a point so fine that many times one can mistaken a position supposedly held by the "other side". I've learned that we all have a common binding purpose and are most if not all are driving by a universal tenet to make oneself and those loved by them better off. No one wants to be the haribinger of revolution. Not one of sound mind looks to disrupt the lives unless they feel the alternative is far worse. I am not hoping for a violent revolution, I just see no other means of change given the path we have taken and how far we have allowed ourselves to be led down it. We judge everyday and more and more draw lines pitting outselves against one another. We've even recently debated a book that was written where the author touched on such a scenario in another thread. Difference in ideology has been and will continue to be the base from which wars/violence stem.
I believe it makes us more than animals and at the same time, all the more worse. And for some reason I want to say that in defying what we are we testify of it's validity.

If the people lose the ability to defend themselves, even against their own Government, they become sheep, they become unequal. All men, were created equal, Men in Government, Men in Business and Men that work the Field. The day that this right is removed from a country is the day it becomes an Imperialistic Establishment in which the Few will rule over the many. This will NOT happen in our new country, because this would reverse that which we have fled from and fought against.
- Thomas Jefferson

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
-The Declaration of Independence.

Over The Course of History, Our Country was founded by not only a voice, but a show of force. "We The People..." These words defied oppression, it defied those who ruled over us. They came to stop these words from ever being spoken again. We fought them, because they didnt deny us the ability, the right, to bear arms. Without that right we would have been oppressed, we would have failed, we wouldnt exist. Our Government is powerful, but they are powerful because of us, we put them there. They were put there by Force, by the force of the people, against their former Government. We the People, Hold that force in reserve, in case it should have to be used again. If you remove the capability to use force, you remove the ability to be a democracy.

-Scatillac

funny thing is wth an abolute reading of the declaration of independance the south was right and correct in suceeding from the union

The south was right actually. Slavery is wrong but as far as states rights go they were totally right in saying fuck you federal government man.

Slavery wasnt even a major issue issue for the South seceeding. Around 6% or so of Southerners even owned a slave. There were about 315,000 slaveowners in the UNION army, compared to the 200,000 slaveowners of the Confederate army. Ulysses S. Grant was even a major slaveowner, once saying "If the war was about slavery I would resign my commission and offer my sword to my enemy". Jefferson Davis himself even said they didnt go to war for slavery.

Im rambling, not opening a can of worms or anything. Just interesting infoz I like to read about.