SA/A/D/SD

[AkSaber]

1.) Felons and those in jail should have the same voting rights as all other citizens. Strongly Disagree

2.) Ex-felons should have the same voting rights as all other citizens. Strongly Disagree

3.) In general, people are just too obsessed with sex. Disagree

4.) We would all be a lot better off if people followed the Golden Rule. Agree

5.) The government's main responsibility should be to keep order. Strongly Agree

6.) Music and the arts are essential for a community to flourish and should be funded by the government. Disagree

7.) The right to revolution in the New Hampshire state constitution is a good thing that all states should have. Disagree

8.) Improvement of the human race through eugenics should be a goal of the government. Strongly Disagree

9.) A Department of Peace should be added to the presidential administration. Strongly Disagree

10.) The voting age should be lowered to 16. Disagree

11.) Immigration is one of the worst problems the United States faces. Disagree

12.) The government should not have any business with people's library records, gun purchases, or credit card use. Strongly Agree

13.) Restrictions on cellphone wiretapping should be loosened. Agree

14.) Criticism of religions such as Christianity and Islam are not protected by free speech. Strongly Disagree

15.) The drinking age should be lowered or abolished. Strongly Disagree

[Emsworth]

You have the fundemental right to own a gun just as I have the fundemental right to own a computer they are both objects of possession. Ok, guns are used as self defence, but no other weapons seem to be fundemental rights? I dont have the fundemental right to own mace, or to own a bomb, or to own a knife. What makes firearms so special?

There's nothing special about guns. You have a fundamental right to own a knife, as well, or in fact anything else suitable for your personal defense. There is a "right to keep and bear arms," not a "right to keep and bear firearms."

So you have the right to own a nuclear bomb then?

I said "suitable for your personal defense." A nuclear bomb does not qualify.

That does not exclude a nuclear bomb. I could "personally use" a nuclear bomb.

With all due respect, I did not say "suitable for your personal use." I said "suitable for your personal defense." A nuclear bomb is not suitable for your personal defense.

It is if I am being attacked by various rogue states!

A nuclear bomb is by its very nature not used for personal defense, but only to attack.

[Hatman 🍁]

You have the fundemental right to own a gun just as I have the fundemental right to own a computer they are both objects of possession. Ok, guns are used as self defence, but no other weapons seem to be fundemental rights? I dont have the fundemental right to own mace, or to own a bomb, or to own a knife. What makes firearms so special?

There's nothing special about guns. You have a fundamental right to own a knife, as well, or in fact anything else suitable for your personal defense. There is a "right to keep and bear arms," not a "right to keep and bear firearms."

So you have the right to own a nuclear bomb then?

I said "suitable for your personal defense." A nuclear bomb does not qualify.

That does not exclude a nuclear bomb. I could "personally use" a nuclear bomb.

With all due respect, I did not say "suitable for your personal use." I said "suitable for your personal defense." A nuclear bomb is not suitable for your personal defense.

It is if I am being attacked by various rogue states!

A nuclear bomb is by its very nature not used for personal defense, but only to attack.

You're starting to get into defintions that dont mean anything. They're both weapons, they're both used for attacking.

[Emsworth]

You're starting to get into defintions that dont mean anything. They're both weapons, they're both used for attacking.

A gun can be used in defending oneself from lawless attack. A nuclear bomb, by its very nature, cannot.

The right to bear arms is indeed subject to certain arbitrary boundaries, but, then again, so is almost every other right. The right to free speech, for example, does not cover libel, slander, or fighting words. The right against double jeopardy does not preclude a second trial if the first results in a hung jury. The right to property is limited by taxation. If all of these rights can be reasonably limited without overstepping the bounds of logic, then so can the right to bear arms. I don't see why there should be a distinction here.

[Hatman 🍁]

You're starting to get into defintions that dont mean anything. They're both weapons, they're both used for attacking.

A gun can be used in defending oneself from lawless attack. A nuclear bomb, by its very nature, cannot.

I disagree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that the right to bear arms is not a fundemental human right.

[Emsworth]

You're starting to get into defintions that dont mean anything. They're both weapons, they're both used for attacking.

A gun can be used in defending oneself from lawless attack. A nuclear bomb, by its very nature, cannot.

I disagree.

So if I am about to rob your home, you will use a nuclear bomb against me?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that the right to bear arms is not a fundemental human right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a fundamental disagreement we have, then. I feel that there is a fundamental right to self-preservation and to resistance to tyranny, from which there flows the auxiliary right to bear arms. You don't.

[Hatman 🍁]

You're starting to get into defintions that dont mean anything. They're both weapons, they're both used for attacking.

A gun can be used in defending oneself from lawless attack. A nuclear bomb, by its very nature, cannot.

I disagree.

So if I am about to rob your home, you will use a nuclear bomb against me?

If a rogue state were to invade my home, a nuclear bomb would come in very handy

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that the right to bear arms is not a fundemental human right.
[/quote]
That's a fundamental disagreement we have, then. I feel that there is a fundamental right to self-preservation and to resistance to tyranny, from which there flows the auxiliary right to bear arms. You don't.
[/quote]

There certainly is a right to defend oneself, but I dont think it is a God given right to have a gun to do so.  If you need a revolution, then the right to own a gun wont really help  you.  It's the same government that gives you those rights that you are fighting against. It's a double standard.

[John Dibble]

You're starting to get into defintions that dont mean anything. They're both weapons, they're both used for attacking.

A gun can be used in defending oneself from lawless attack. A nuclear bomb, by its very nature, cannot.

I disagree.

So if I am about to rob your home, you will use a nuclear bomb against me?

If a rogue state were to invade my home, a nuclear bomb would come in very handy

What, you plan to blow up yourself and the entire surrounding area to defend your house? I don't think that qualifies as self-defense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that the right to bear arms is not a fundemental human right.
[/quote]
That's a fundamental disagreement we have, then. I feel that there is a fundamental right to self-preservation and to resistance to tyranny, from which there flows the auxiliary right to bear arms. You don't.
[/quote]

There certainly is a right to defend oneself, but I dont think it is a God given right to have a gun to do so.  If you need a revolution, then the right to own a gun wont really help  you.  It's the same government that gives you those rights that you are fighting against. It's a double standard.
[/quote]

Hardly a double standard. Just because a government at one point respects your right to do something does not mean that government will always respect it. Once the government does try to take away the right, it becomes time to exercise it.

"The real beauty of the second amendment is that it is absolutely meaningless until they try to take it away." - Thomas Jefferson

And you say that we have a right to defend ourselves, but how would you expect people to do that in this modern world without the aid of a weapon? With their bare fists? If you are attacked by someone stronger, or by a large group, or anything similar, your physical force will not allow you to defend yourself adequately. In this modern world, the single most effective means of self-defense is a gun. Denying law abiding citizens the right to own a gun is tantamount to denying them the right to defend themselves, therefore gun ownership is a fundamental right so long as the right to defend oneself is also fundamental.

[Emsworth]

There certainly is a right to defend oneself, but I dont think it is a God given right to have a gun to do so.

No right, I believe, is "God given." God has nothing to do with it. 

The rest is as John Dibble said above.

[Hatman 🍁]

You're starting to get into defintions that dont mean anything. They're both weapons, they're both used for attacking.

A gun can be used in defending oneself from lawless attack. A nuclear bomb, by its very nature, cannot.

I disagree.

So if I am about to rob your home, you will use a nuclear bomb against me?

If a rogue state were to invade my home, a nuclear bomb would come in very handy

What, you plan to blow up yourself and the entire surrounding area to defend your house? I don't think that qualifies as self-defense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that the right to bear arms is not a fundemental human right.

That's a fundamental disagreement we have, then. I feel that there is a fundamental right to self-preservation and to resistance to tyranny, from which there flows the auxiliary right to bear arms. You don't.
[/quote]

There certainly is a right to defend oneself, but I dont think it is a God given right to have a gun to do so.  If you need a revolution, then the right to own a gun wont really help  you.  It's the same government that gives you those rights that you are fighting against. It's a double standard.
[/quote]

Hardly a double standard. Just because a government at one point respects your right to do something does not mean that government will always respect it. Once the government does try to take away the right, it becomes time to exercise it.

"The real beauty of the second amendment is that it is absolutely meaningless until they try to take it away." - Thomas Jefferson

And you say that we have a right to defend ourselves, but how would you expect people to do that in this modern world without the aid of a weapon? With their bare fists? If you are attacked by someone stronger, or by a large group, or anything similar, your physical force will not allow you to defend yourself adequately. In this modern world, the single most effective means of self-defense is a gun. Denying law abiding citizens the right to own a gun is tantamount to denying them the right to defend themselves, therefore gun ownership is a fundamental right so long as the right to defend oneself is also fundamental.
[/quote]

If a revolution becomes necessary, there will be means of getting a gun if necessary.  There are also other ways of defending yourself than to use guns. There is absolutely nothing fundementaly inherent about the right to an object of any sort. Democracy is not an object, speech is not an object, life is not an object. Weapons are.

[Democratic Hawk]

1.) Felons and those in jail should have the same voting rights as all other citizens. SD

2.) Ex-felons should have the same voting rights as all other citizens. A

3.) In general, people are just too obsessed with sex. D

4.) We would all be a lot better off if people followed the Golden Rule. A

5.) The government's main responsibility should be to keep order. D

6.) Music and the arts are essential for a community to flourish and should be funded by the government. A

7.) The right to revolution in the New Hampshire state constitution is a good thing that all states should have. D

8.) Improvement of the human race through eugenics should be a goal of the government. SD

9.) A Department of Peace should be added to the presidential administration. SD

10.) The voting age should be lowered to 16. SA

11.) Immigration is one of the worst problems the United States faces. D

12.) The government should not have any business with people's library records, gun purchases, or credit card use. A

13.) Restrictions on cellphone wiretapping should be loosened. D

14.) Criticism of religions such as Christianity and Islam are not protected by free speech. A

15.) The drinking age should be lowered or abolished. D

Dave

[John Dibble]

If a revolution becomes necessary, there will be means of getting a gun if necessary.

It is more difficult to attain weapons once the government forbids them. Yes, it's possible, but if you need to commit to a revolution you want to be armed immediately and beforehand.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With your bare fists? You haven't answered my question - how in this modern world can a person be expected to defend themselves sufficiently without one? Do you expect women to defend themselves from a rapist with her bare fists? Do you expect someone to stop themselves from getting mugged by a group of thugs with a knife?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't have a right TO one, but you have the right to own one so long as you have the right to self defense. You deny people their right to self defense if you deny them the right to own a firearm. Allowing people to own firearms is essential to the preservation of liberty.


Back to the subject of five year olds getting to vote - you say they should because it is a fundamental right. Now tell me this: Do they have the right to free speech? If yes, then you support making it illegal for parents to punish them for cursing. You need to face the facts - children are not mature enough to have the same rights and privileges as adults, and any sane society recognizes this.

[Hatman 🍁]

If a revolution becomes necessary, there will be means of getting a gun if necessary.

It is more difficult to attain weapons once the government forbids them. Yes, it's possible, but if you need to commit to a revolution you want to be armed immediately and beforehand.

I disagree. If the people want it enough, the lack of immediate firearms is not going to stop them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With your bare fists? You haven't answered my question - how in this modern world can a person be expected to defend themselves sufficiently without one? Do you expect women to defend themselves from a rapist with her bare fists? Do you expect someone to stop themselves from getting mugged by a group of thugs with a knife?
[/quote]
When was the last time a woman defended herself from rape with a gun? They use mace. Knives are also a good thing. The bottom line is, if the attackers have no gun either, there is nothing to worry about. Sure, there will be a black market, but even in just a well regulated area, crimes invaulving firearms are rare. (like here).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No more than I have a right to this computer. It's an object too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They do have the right to freedom of speech, but only the government can take that away, not their parents obviously. If they chose to live with their parents, they are tennats and have to abide by the rules of the dwelling.

[John Dibble]

If a revolution becomes necessary, there will be means of getting a gun if necessary.

It is more difficult to attain weapons once the government forbids them. Yes, it's possible, but if you need to commit to a revolution you want to be armed immediately and beforehand.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

However they will be at a fundamental disadvantage if the need for revolution arises.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With your bare fists? You haven't answered my question - how in this modern world can a person be expected to defend themselves sufficiently without one? Do you expect women to defend themselves from a rapist with her bare fists? Do you expect someone to stop themselves from getting mugged by a group of thugs with a knife?
[/quote]
When was the last time a woman defended herself from rape with a gun? They use mace. Knives are also a good thing. The bottom line is, if the attackers have no gun either, there is nothing to worry about. Sure, there will be a black market, but even in just a well regulated area, crimes invaulving firearms are rare. (like here).[/quote]

1. Here's a couple examples. Only a gun control nut would think a raped woman is superior to a dead rapist.
http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/crime/defense/mar1994/rapist.html
http://iafrica.com/news/sa/351374.htm

If more women carried guns, there would be less attempts at rape.

2. Mace will not necessarily stop a rapist, and it's virtually useless against a group. More info:
http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna/mace.html

It is especially ineffective if the criminal is on some sort of drug like PCP or some other drug that might dull pain.

3. When law abiding citizens can't have guns, only criminals will. And even if they don't, they will have a fundamental advantage anyways - criminals generally prey on those weaker than themselves, but when the defender has a gun the criminal's strength no longer matters. So either you can have a level playing field where the weak can have adequate defense or you can

4. Knives have the highest injury rate for the victim among any means of self-defense, even higher than non-resistence. Guns have the lowest - in fact in most cases where a gun is employed for self-defense the criminal will run away without a shot needing to be fired. A 120lb woman is not going to have much of a chance in hand to hand combat with a 250lb rapist.

Further, melee weapons take time that most people do not have to become proficient with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They do have the right to freedom of speech, but only the government can take that away, not their parents obviously. If they chose to live with their parents, they are tennats and have to abide by the rules of the dwelling.
[/quote]

Yes, a five year old is going to choose to go live on his own.

You are aware that child labor is illegal in most countries that have freedom of speech, right? So how do you propose children who decide to leave the nest survive. Sheesh, I'm glad most people in society don't believe in this nonsense.

[Hatman 🍁]

If a revolution becomes necessary, there will be means of getting a gun if necessary.

It is more difficult to attain weapons once the government forbids them. Yes, it's possible, but if you need to commit to a revolution you want to be armed immediately and beforehand.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

However they will be at a fundamental disadvantage if the need for revolution arises.

I disagree completely. But I think, we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With your bare fists? You haven't answered my question - how in this modern world can a person be expected to defend themselves sufficiently without one? Do you expect women to defend themselves from a rapist with her bare fists? Do you expect someone to stop themselves from getting mugged by a group of thugs with a knife?
[/quote]
When was the last time a woman defended herself from rape with a gun? They use mace. Knives are also a good thing. The bottom line is, if the attackers have no gun either, there is nothing to worry about. Sure, there will be a black market, but even in just a well regulated area, crimes invaulving firearms are rare. (like here).[/quote]

1. Here's a couple examples. Only a gun control nut would think a raped woman is superior to a dead rapist.
http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/crime/defense/mar1994/rapist.html
http://iafrica.com/news/sa/351374.htm

If more women carried guns, there would be less attempts at rape.

[/quote]

Giving people more weapons is not the solution to these problems. You will only create a society of fear by weaponizing everyone. Mace is a great alternative to firearms I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Group rapes are very rare. Again, weaponizing people is not the answer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure criminals will have guns, but they will be very difficult to attain, and there will be less of them, and therefore less problems.
Again, criminal acts involving guns are rare in societies that have strict gun laws.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The numbers for accidental deaths due to guns going off accidentaly is huge. They are a dangerous weapon.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They do have the right to freedom of speech, but only the government can take that away, not their parents obviously. If they chose to live with their parents, they are tennats and have to abide by the rules of the dwelling.
[/quote]

Yes, a five year old is going to choose to go live on his own.

You are aware that child labor is illegal in most countries that have freedom of speech, right? So how do you propose children who decide to leave the nest survive. Sheesh, I'm glad most people in society don't believe in this nonsense.
[/quote]

They can't survive, and that is why they have to live with their parents.

Calling my views as nonsense is a real low blow, Mr. Dibble. I certainly dont think democracy is nonsense.

[Emsworth]

I certainly dont think democracy is nonsense.

This statement seems to imply that because a majority is opposed to guns, there should be no right to guns. If so, I would have to absolutely disagree. Rights are and ought to be absolutely independent of the whims of the majority.

[Ebowed]

Abolishing the voting age, giving the right to vote to 4 year olds, and fining parents who force their kids to vote the way they want them to... is nonsense.

[KillerPollo]

Abolishing the voting age, giving the right to vote to 4 year olds, and fining parents who force their kids to vote the way they want them to... is nonsense.

This way, the libertarian party can win the popular vote.

[Hatman 🍁]

Abolishing the voting age, giving the right to vote to 4 year olds, and fining parents who force their kids to vote the way they want them to... is nonsense.

It is extremely offensive that anyone would feel democracy is nonsense. I believe that democracy ought not be restricted based on anything, including age. Why is this so hard to comprehend? I like democracy, I think it is a good thing, it should have restrictions.  That is my belief. I dont call your beliefs nonsense.

[A18]

Wow, you are the absolute dumbest person I've ever met in my life. Now we're going to let four year olds decide what our rights are. I guess that's better than Democrats, but still not ideal. A better method needs to be worked out.

[Hatman 🍁]

Wow, you are the absolute dumbest person I've ever met in my life. Now we're going to let four year olds decide what our rights are. I guess that's better than Democrats, but still not ideal. A better method needs to be worked out.

 you. You're the last person who should be talking about democracy.

[A18]

And if my reasoning skills were as poor as yours, I might actually think that opposition to democracy means one should not oppose a form of democracy. Thankfully they're not, so I can just laugh at that post.

[Hatman 🍁]

And if my reasoning skills were as poor as yours, I might actually think that opposition to democracy means one should not oppose a form of democracy. Thankfully they're not, so I can just laugh at that post.

You're free to believe whatever you wish, but that's no reason to call me the dumbest person ever. I have my beliefs about democracy, just as you do.

[Gabu]

Abolishing the voting age, giving the right to vote to 4 year olds, and fining parents who force their kids to vote the way they want them to... is nonsense.

It is extremely offensive that anyone would feel democracy is nonsense. I believe that democracy ought not be restricted based on anything, including age. Why is this so hard to comprehend? I like democracy, I think it is a good thing, it should have restrictions.  That is my belief. I dont call your beliefs nonsense.

I'll clarify my question a few pages back regarding your thoughts on the purpose of voting.  I like democracy because I feel that a large, informed populace can better dictate where a country should go than any other form of government.  If an elected official is doing a bad job, an informed populace will be able to identify this, and replace that official.  Obviously there will be disagreements, but I feel that if the people at least know somewhat what they're talking about, that the general consensus reached through democracy will steer the country in the wrong direction.

This is why I don't feel that five-year-olds should vote: five-year-olds are - face it - incapable in general of being informed at all about pretty much any issue under the sun, and are much more likely to vote purely based on who they feel like, who has the funniest name, or whatever.  Given that, in almost every case, there are a lot more wrong decisions to be made than right decisions, choosing completely randomly as a five-year-old would probably do is very likely to heavily dilute the efforts of the informed among the populace to steer the country in the right direction.  Quite frankly, I feel that allowing people who are almost 100% likely to have no idea what they're doing to steer the direction of an entire country is a very dangerous thing to do.

In short, I feel that allowing five-year-olds to vote would hurt a country, because it's essentially placing someone who doesn't know how to drive behind the wheel of a car.

On the other hand, you seem to be treating democracy as an end, rather than a means to an end - i.e., that it doesn't matter what the democracy produces - it can run a country into the ground and thrust everyone into poverty - as long as we have as much democracy as possible.  It's for this reason that I ask you what you feel the purpose of voting is.  Why is democracy a good thing even if it runs a country into the ground and makes its citizens badly off?

[Hatman 🍁]

Again, you guys are focusing too much on the five year olds. Not enough five year olds would cast proper ballots for the election to be swayed in their favour. It's not like all hell is going to break loose if this happens. And just to be on the safe side, I am in favour of lowering the voting age by a couple of years every decade or so, to make it more gradual. But you have to understand the principle I believe in, is that I believe everyone should have the right to vote. There are always going to be uninformed voters, adding to that number will never be a problem.