0
   

Rice: Gun Rights Important As Free Speech

 
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 06:50 am
Freedom my arse, what about cars? There's more restrictions placed on driving a car than a gun. Now that's just plain wrong.

Of course, I live in a country where the restriction on guns is immense (especially after some guy went on a one-man killing spree with his weapons during the 70s). The gun problems we have are relatively rare, but I think that's down to a cultural aspect more than anything else.

What the US needs is a tiny bit more legislation to prevent nut-cases from getting their hands on weapons. It also may need to change its culture a tiny bit.

For example, the UK has an equally bad problem of binge drinking. It seems to be a case of culture, because ever since the Government recently relaxed pub opening hours to cmobat excessive drinking there's been no news of success or failure.

It would seem that things haven't changed.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 11:36 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
Freedom my arse,


Freedom is important. Better to have the whole country annihilated, and me with it, than to let the anti-gunners enslave us.



Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
what about cars? There's more restrictions placed on driving a car than a gun.


That isn't the case here in America, except maybe in Vermont.



Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
What the US needs is a tiny bit more legislation to prevent nut-cases from getting their hands on weapons. It also may need to change its culture a tiny bit.


First, no more gun regulations until the unconstitutional regulations are lifted, and we are compensated for the violation of our rights.

Second, since the "tiny bit more" is likely to be a violation of our Constitutional rights, the answer is probably no to that anyway (though I'd have to see the proposal to judge for sure).
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 11:56 am
Quote:
First, no more gun regulations until the unconstitutional regulations are lifted, and we are compensated for the violation of our rights.


Compensated? Are you joking?

Sheesh

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 12:31 pm
So when the founding fathers died, they entrusted the word from on high on all constitutional issues to Oralloy?

Who knew?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 12:36 pm
oralloy wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
I'll take my chances with my weapons instead of begging for mercy. Thank you very much.


This raises a good point: Even if someone manages to show that guns are more of a problem than a solution, it is still imperative that we be allowed to have them. It is a matter of freedom.


Just curious if this applies to all weapons, incuding WMD. Then wondering why you get to have them and others don't. Seems a little bit hypocritical in my book.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 02:42 pm
oralloy wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
Freedom my arse,


Freedom is important. Better to have the whole country annihilated, and me with it, than to let the anti-gunners enslave us.


Speak for yourself, Rambo.

Though, in fairness, I guess you are. If I can paraphrase: "I'd rather die and have the US destroyed, than give up my gun."
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 04:56 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Compensated? Are you joking?


No.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 04:57 pm
Setanta wrote:
So when the founding fathers died, they entrusted the word from on high on all constitutional issues to Oralloy?


Not exactly, but they gave us freedom of association, so we could form groups like the NRA, and we can pledge to vote only for politicians who have the NRA's seal of approval, which gives the NRA the power to go to moderate congressmen in swing districts and tell them that if they do the wrong thing "X number of voters" are going to stop voting for them and start voting against them.

This gives the NRA an iron grip over the heart of Congress, and allows them to say no to new gun legislation.

So the Framers did make sure that we Americans could defend or Constitutional liberties if need be.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 05:00 pm
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
I'll take my chances with my weapons instead of begging for mercy. Thank you very much.


This raises a good point: Even if someone manages to show that guns are more of a problem than a solution, it is still imperative that we be allowed to have them. It is a matter of freedom.


Just curious if this applies to all weapons, incuding WMD.


No it doesn't. It could probably be limited to automatic rifles with AP ammo.



parados wrote:
Then wondering why you get to have them and others don't. Seems a little bit hypocritical in my book.


I'm not sure what "others" you are talking about.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 05:02 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
Freedom my arse,


Freedom is important. Better to have the whole country annihilated, and me with it, than to let the anti-gunners enslave us.


Speak for yourself, Rambo.

Though, in fairness, I guess you are. If I can paraphrase: "I'd rather die and have the US destroyed, than give up my gun."


I speak for all who value American freedom.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 05:02 pm
Which is to say, that you personally have no authority for asserting what you will or won't accept in the matter of gun control legislation.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 05:10 pm
Setanta wrote:
Which is to say, that you personally have no authority for asserting what you will or won't accept in the matter of gun control legislation.


I have complete authority over what I will personally accept or not accept.

I don't have authority to decide what the NRA will tell Congress is acceptable, but I think I have a fairly good sense as to what the NRA will tell Congress to do.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 05:15 pm
Oralloy, this is the drivel you are peddling as though you speak from on high with regard to constitutional issues:

"Second, since the "tiny bit more" is likely to be a violation of our Constitutional rights, the answer is probably no to that anyway (though I'd have to see the proposal to judge for sure)."

I have absolutely no reason to consider it reasonable to think that you personally are authorized to judge what is or is not constitutionally acceptable. I think it not unreasonable to assert the Supremes and the Federal judiciary would take the same stance.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 05:37 pm
Setanta wrote:
Oralloy, this is the drivel you are peddling as though you speak from on high with regard to constitutional issues:

"Second, since the "tiny bit more" is likely to be a violation of our Constitutional rights, the answer is probably no to that anyway (though I'd have to see the proposal to judge for sure)."

I have absolutely no reason to consider it reasonable to think that you personally are authorized to judge what is or is not constitutionally acceptable. I think it not unreasonable to assert the Supremes and the Federal judiciary would take the same stance.


I don't claim to be authorized.

I claim to be capable of reaching the only correct interpretation.

Freedom of Speech gives me the right to state that correct interpretation.

I wouldn't need authority unless I was trying to make my proclamations legally binding on the nation.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 05:40 pm
oralloy wrote:
I claim to be capable of reaching the only correct interpretation.


This is an assertion without substantiation.

Quote:
Freedom of speech gives me the right to state that correct interpretation.


No, freedom of speech gives you the right to assert that you are capable of stating the only correct interpretation--and give me the right to heap scorn on your conceit.

Quote:
I wouldn't need authority unless I was trying to make my proclamations legally binding on the nation.


This is the closest you've come to a sensible remark in this entire exchange.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 05:49 pm
Setanta wrote:
oralloy wrote:
I claim to be capable of reaching the only correct interpretation.


This is an assertion without substantiation.


If anyone wishes to argue that my interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect, I'm always willing to listen to their arguments.

Besides my willingness to debate any challengers, I see no need to provide substantiation for that claim.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 06:26 pm
I'm sure you don't, i'm well aware with your view of the excellence of your own opinions. It may or may not come as news to you, not everyone is as convinced as you seem to be.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 06:44 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Not with the right kind of gun. They make a revolver which shoots small guage (20 or 410) shotshells and, at close range, that thing is death on snakes. Everybody in India should have one.


I'm sure it is death on snakes. But the two factors that stick out to me are,

1. Guns and ammo are expensive.

2. Guns take safety courses to handle properly.

Snakes are not a harmful part of nature when handled properly and in fact are instrumental in keeping the rat population down in India, which is immense to begin with.

I appreciate the sentiment of wanting to help the Indian people but I think this may be one of those rare cases where guns aren't the solution.

Cycloptichorn

ps many Hindus believe it is wrong to kill anything, so I'm not sure it would go over too well with them, the whole gun thing

That post made me smile...
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 08:18 pm
I suppose all those Hindus hold daily prayer vigils for all the bugs they stepped on, or were killed during the harvest.

Retarded.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 09:55 am
oralloy wrote:
D'artagnan wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
Freedom my arse,


Freedom is important. Better to have the whole country annihilated, and me with it, than to let the anti-gunners enslave us.


Speak for yourself, Rambo.

Though, in fairness, I guess you are. If I can paraphrase: "I'd rather die and have the US destroyed, than give up my gun."


I speak for all who value American freedom.


I'm guessing that overstatement is your default style of debate--or are do you really believe that "you speak for all who value American freedom"? That's beyond arrogant and all the way to foolish...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 08:00:08