17th April 2007, 8:38 PM
Stocked women? ... Wait do you mean "stalked"? The two words are spelled, pronounced, and mean different things. You're getting better though.
He sure did buy a gun. Of course, it's a touchy thing asking what sort of restrictions, if any, should be applied.
Here's my thoughts. This was originally a check and balance idea, with the check being that if the government was afraid of pushing too far out of fear of armed rebellion, it wouldn't abuse it's powers.
Now, people bring up a lot of arguments about how applicable that is but the thing is, the right to bear arms no longer serves this purpose. If we were to allow all guns to be sold, we still would be little more than a "bothersome insurgence" to the current military. They have trained units with amazing tactical capacity, but that's NOTHING compaired to the fact that they are ALSO outfitted with technology the people will just not be able to reproduce or counter. We're talking night vision goggles, frickin' TANKS, air bombings, and if certain areas get too troublesome, NUKES. Technology has grown to the point where a rag tag team of rebels CANNOT form a functional rebellion force. They would have to develop that whole tech tree to reach that point, and do it in the underground, while constantly being persecuted.
In order to form a proper rebellion to gain the original intended spirit of that amendment, we'd need to allow legal ownership of weapons of mass destruction. That's simply not reasonable in terms of outright mass murder potential unimagined in the old times (well, maybe imagined, but as a fantasy, no wait, volcanos, well it was only doable by the planet at the time at least).
Basically it can't serve a rebellion, and as recent events can tell you, it can't even protect a single person from being arrested by a well armed SWAT team. One can argue how necessary a well armed militia is for the security of a free state, but the fact is, right to bear arms no longer serves that purpose, and to extend it to include weapons that would put the needed power into the hands of the people would inevitably result in catastophies of horrific proportions. Yes, those who give up freedom for safety deserve neither, but... that really doesn't apply to nuclear weapons.
So basically all I'm saying is the argument for gun rights based on protecting us from an oppresive government is flawed due to it just not working. About as effective as saying people should have rights to gumdrops for... national defense.
I'm not saying this means guns should be banned, I still haven't made up my mind if the other arguments are valid, I'm just saying that argument won't fly any more.
He sure did buy a gun. Of course, it's a touchy thing asking what sort of restrictions, if any, should be applied.
Here's my thoughts. This was originally a check and balance idea, with the check being that if the government was afraid of pushing too far out of fear of armed rebellion, it wouldn't abuse it's powers.
Now, people bring up a lot of arguments about how applicable that is but the thing is, the right to bear arms no longer serves this purpose. If we were to allow all guns to be sold, we still would be little more than a "bothersome insurgence" to the current military. They have trained units with amazing tactical capacity, but that's NOTHING compaired to the fact that they are ALSO outfitted with technology the people will just not be able to reproduce or counter. We're talking night vision goggles, frickin' TANKS, air bombings, and if certain areas get too troublesome, NUKES. Technology has grown to the point where a rag tag team of rebels CANNOT form a functional rebellion force. They would have to develop that whole tech tree to reach that point, and do it in the underground, while constantly being persecuted.
In order to form a proper rebellion to gain the original intended spirit of that amendment, we'd need to allow legal ownership of weapons of mass destruction. That's simply not reasonable in terms of outright mass murder potential unimagined in the old times (well, maybe imagined, but as a fantasy, no wait, volcanos, well it was only doable by the planet at the time at least).
Basically it can't serve a rebellion, and as recent events can tell you, it can't even protect a single person from being arrested by a well armed SWAT team. One can argue how necessary a well armed militia is for the security of a free state, but the fact is, right to bear arms no longer serves that purpose, and to extend it to include weapons that would put the needed power into the hands of the people would inevitably result in catastophies of horrific proportions. Yes, those who give up freedom for safety deserve neither, but... that really doesn't apply to nuclear weapons.
So basically all I'm saying is the argument for gun rights based on protecting us from an oppresive government is flawed due to it just not working. About as effective as saying people should have rights to gumdrops for... national defense.
I'm not saying this means guns should be banned, I still haven't made up my mind if the other arguments are valid, I'm just saying that argument won't fly any more.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)