12/01/2004 4:16pm, #21
The emotive response is a dog to get around. Both sides train their people to expect the worst from their opponents. The PB members immediately see Brady when they hear talk of gun registration, whereas many liberals will see BillyBob redneck when they hear talk about second amendment rights. The world isn't so polarized, but people tend to start from that position.
"Most of ya'll just ain't responsible..."
There are assholes in every group. And assholes with guns are more dangerous assholes. I'm sorry that you have had to run into one, and it is unfortunate that these people don't have more respect for the rights of others (namely, your right to say no). But because there are no fool-proof methods to keep assholes from getting guns, it doesn't mean that everyone should suffer for it. We're not all assholes. It's like assuming all Cubans love baseball because you met one that did.
I knew when I started the MT correlation that it was spurious, but then again it's so hard to draw parallels with any other situation.
You'd never know I have guns unless I showed them to you, or you were at the range with me. I keep them hidden away, where I can get to them when i need them. You don't see me posing for matrix-style pseudo-badass pictures. Mostly because I am not trying to sell an e-zine that caters to people who like trenchcoats and guns. Which might explain Phil. I don't think that if you met him in person that he would come across as bad as it might seem from surface reading. His 'posturing' is hardly taken seriously, by his readership or himself. Often, they are usually jokes.
How is my statement about the 'lowest common denominator' offensive? Progress has never been made in the pampering of morons. If you are assuming that I am calling you a moron, I am not, and I apologize for the confusion.
Last edited by Ray Nelson; 12/01/2004 4:20pm at .
12/01/2004 5:33pm, #22
I don't think it's been mentioned yet, and not that I hold this as true, but the primary argument of the far-right "pry it from my cold, dead, fingers" type with regards to gun control was that the founding fathers expected every man to own guns in the event the government became corrupt to the point it needed to be overthrown.
We're far beyond the original system at this point, for good or bad, with the loss of State's Rights (see the medical marajuana issue for evidence of this). And it could be argued that the founding fathers, who didn't forsee developments in military technology, would likely have had a different take on citizens owning tanks, GE Miniguns, and nuclear weapons (though I imagine individual states would have been the ones to maintain such arsenals under the original vision of the system).
So this is where the crackpot, Montana Militia type draws their justification for owning military grade weapons.
I personally feel that if you never served in the military, or some similar form of public service, you shouldn't get to vote, much less run around in the woods with a Browning 50 cal.
12/01/2004 5:34pm, #23
I think he (Wastrel) got his tucker up about "lowest common denominator" think that you meant the poor, the black, the brown and anyone who lives in a bad neighborhood. Like "Why regulate guns, when it was just that little black girl who got shot while she was sleeping, not me?"
Which is what I thought too, but that seems that isn't what you meant and thanks for clearing it up.
The affforementioned little black girl is one of the reasons that gun control people get furious with 2nd amendies. When they say "Well, people are always going to kill each other. What can you do?" we think about that mother or father on tv whose kid just got shot while they were sleeping or playing by a gun with a high capacity magazine and an easy conversion to full auto. Given that foil, the "**** happens. We need to raise better kids" rings a little false to us.
Leastways, that's where I think we are coming from.
You're a sensible guy, Ray. Stick around. Someone rep this guy.I dork harder than any of you can imagine.
12/01/2004 5:40pm, #24Originally Posted by Phrost
12/01/2004 5:46pm, #25Originally Posted by Phrost
(Caveat: There are going to be all kinds of responses about convicted felons and minors, but let's be reasonable...duh.)Normally, I'd say I was grappling, but I was taking down and mounting people, and JFS has kindly informed us that takedowns and being mounted are neither grappling nor anti grappling, so I'm not sure what the **** I was doing. Maybe schroedinger's sparring, where it's neither grappling nor anti-grappling until somoene observes it and collapses the waveform, and then I RNC a cat to death.----fatherdog
12/01/2004 5:51pm, #26
12/01/2004 5:54pm, #27Originally Posted by Phrost
It's also worth noting that the Constitution that soldiers, airmen and sailor swear to protect is the same one that secures all adults the right to vote.I dork harder than any of you can imagine.
12/01/2004 6:01pm, #28Originally Posted by The Wastrel
I think Heinlein's model of "citizenship through service" has a lot of merit. It'd prevent those who haven't demonstrated a commitment to the betterment of society from participating in the decision making process. Everyone would be granted the choice to serve, in the best capacity they could, and those who chose not to do so of their own free will, simply wouldn't have the same benefits.
As such, it's not a "two class" caste system in that everyone has the option to prove their dedication to the country, and be a full citizen with voting rights, or be content to live under the shelter of those who defend their freedoms without the right to affect policy.
12/01/2004 6:05pm, #29Originally Posted by Phrost
Wouldn't you also agree that there is a natural right to ownership of the product of your work? And if so, doesn't that imply that others don't have the right to force their laws on you without some sort of consent from you simply because someone drew a map with you in it?
Think about it; there's a big question here.Normally, I'd say I was grappling, but I was taking down and mounting people, and JFS has kindly informed us that takedowns and being mounted are neither grappling nor anti grappling, so I'm not sure what the **** I was doing. Maybe schroedinger's sparring, where it's neither grappling nor anti-grappling until somoene observes it and collapses the waveform, and then I RNC a cat to death.----fatherdog
12/01/2004 6:14pm, #30Originally Posted by The Wastrel
There are, admitedly, a lot of flaws to the system. Under such a system, there would be a need for a "bill of unalienable rights" for both Citizen and Resident, which would include sovreignty over one's property and freedom/protections built in that would prevent outright subjugation by the Citizen class.
But that's picking nits. It's no different than the checks and ballances built into the three seperate branches of the US government; the practical means of achieving the system concieved by Jefferson, et al.