Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Dec 19, '12 at 1:48am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,166 posts

Knight

And he's got you there nic, our version of speech has changed as well as our guns, does that mean that our right of speech is limited only to letters, newspapers, and what we say outlowd and our right to online speech isn't protected?

You missed my point. The central idea to the right to free speech is the freedom of expression, and that a man should be able to believe in what he wants to, so long as it does not breed hate and discrimination. This belief has not changed. The right to free speech was not enacted because a certain group of American forefathers spoke in a certain linguistic pattern.

On the other hand, the right to bear arms was grounded in the need to call up a citizen militia in times of war where the national army was not fully established. It was based on the technology of the time, where muskets were in use. Today, there is however no need of a citizen militia against foreign nations, nor are we using muskets, which are single shot, difficult to use guns. We instead have multiple round, rapid fire rifles, which has utterly changed the scale and dynamics of the situation.

Spelling it color instead of colour, however, has not affected the dynamics of free speech in any distinguishable way, other than the fun the Commonwealth world has at American laziness.

 

Posted Dec 19, '12 at 1:52am

Kasic

Kasic

5,591 posts

You quoted my answer, Kasic, yet not the gist of the post.

What you said is basically just a variation/instance of what I think should be done. I didn't have any reasons to pick at it or to really add to it.

Although while I'm at it, those types of things can be tampered with too and would really only prevent accidental shootings, which are the lesser of the problem.

And he's got you there nic, our version of speech has changed as well as our guns,

pang isn't too good with finding analogous comparisons. Language and weaponry are two entirely different things, treating them as the same beast is stupid.

 

Posted Dec 19, '12 at 1:54am

404011xz

404011xz

218 posts

There it is. So you are saying that the right to bear arms is limited to civil war guns. But our right to speech isn't limited to only newspaper, voice, and mail. You can't say one thing that counterdicts the other. So basically if you support your statement with old cival war guns then you say that our right to speech online, on the phone, or on any modern day technology isn't protected.

 

Posted Dec 19, '12 at 1:56am

wolf1991

wolf1991

3,061 posts

So you are saying that the right to bear arms is limited to civil war guns. But our right to speech isn't limited to only newspaper, voice, and mail. You can't say one thing that counterdicts the other. So basically if you support your statement with old cival war guns then you say that our right to speech online, on the phone, or on any modern day technology isn't protected.

What? You cannot compare two things that are so fundamentally different. The evolution of language does not pertain to the evolution of fire arms.

 

Posted Dec 19, '12 at 1:58am

Kasic

Kasic

5,591 posts

So you are saying that the right to bear arms is limited to civil war guns.

No...what he's saying is that the right to bear arms was thought up with the circumstances and technological level of the world 200-300 years ago.

But our right to speech isn't limited to only newspaper, voice, and mail. You can't say one thing that counterdicts the other.

You can't contradict what isn't even related. The right to free speech and the right to bear arms are two completely different things.

 

Posted Dec 19, '12 at 1:59am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,166 posts

Knight

So you are saying that the right to bear arms is limited to civil war guns

No I am not. I am saying that the right to bear arms was pertinent in the Civil War era, and the Revolution era, but not now.

So basically if you support your statement with old cival war guns then you say that our right to speech online, on the phone, or on any modern day technology isn't protected.

In that case, the equality afforded to all races should be extended to homosexuals then? Because if you discount one, you're contradicting yourself? Right? Right?

Or are they two different issues? Go figure. You're not even addressing my main points rightly, or even understanding them.

 

Posted Dec 19, '12 at 2:09am

404011xz

404011xz

218 posts

Ok then. The founding fathers thought that we would run around with simple single action rifles our entire existance as a nation. You don't think they would of though technology would of advanced and came up with more coplex means of war? and that homosecxual thing don't really work on me. I don't care as long as they don't try and bother me. and you aren't understanding me. If you try to limit one freedom you are actually opening it up to limit another freedom. And how is it that you are saying one right is limited by time but the other isn't limited by that timezone.

 

Posted Dec 19, '12 at 2:16am

Kasic

Kasic

5,591 posts

The founding fathers thought that we would run around with simple single action rifles our entire existance as a nation. You don't think they would of though technology would of advanced and came up with more coplex means of war?

In all honesty, they probably weren't thinking -that- far ahead at the time. Not only was a lot of stuff going on, it's hard to imagine exactly what future technology will bring about. I highly doubt they imagined guns that could shoot over 10 rounds a second with far more accuracy, range and destructive power and can be reloaded in less than 2-3 seconds easily and are cheap enough for the average person to afford them.

The founding fathers weren't omnipotent. They were people too. Also worth noting is that the constitution has written in it that it can be amended.

If you try to limit one freedom you are actually opening it up to limit another freedom.

Let's drop the paranoid domino schema. It's not really applicable to all that much even if it sounds threatening.

And how is it that you are saying one right is limited by time but the other isn't limited by that timezone.

Because guns and words aren't the same thing. They aren't used the same way. Language hasn't fundamentally changed, it's just different from what it used to be. Modern guns are an entirely different beast than a musket.

 

Posted Dec 19, '12 at 2:19am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,166 posts

Knight

and that homosecxual thing don't really work on me. I don't care as long as they don't try and bother me. and you aren't understanding me. If you try to limit one freedom you are actually opening it up to limit another freedom. And how is it that you are saying one right is limited by time but the other isn't limited by that timezone.

It is relevant. I'm stating that if racial equality is upheld, by your logic, all kinds of equality should. But that is clearly not the case.

Let's drop the paranoid domino schema. It's not really applicable to all that much even if it sounds threatening.

No it isn't. In the UK gun control is all the rage. But no one can accuse the UK of gross human rights abuses.

 

Posted Dec 19, '12 at 2:24am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

8,704 posts

It was based on the technology of the time, where muskets were in use

But the wording does not state muskets..the way the amendment was written (Right to bear arms) gives an implication that one has the right to bear arms..no matter the evolution of these arms

Well...I seem to have left a hole that could easily be attacked now haven't I? **** RPG's...

But like I said..I do agree with the viewpoint of that the amendment was created solely based on how America was as a country at the time..my issue was how he was saying that because the guns have gotten more advanced, the law has become outdated..rather than because we are in a different America now, the law has become outdated

The evolution of language does not pertain to the evolution of fire arms.

This is my fault...I don't know why he is continuing trying to push it though. I was focusing on the 2 evolving throughout the time span that I completely overlooked their differences. What I was trying to get at was that the law isn't outdated because of the guns we have now, but because of America's situational differences now

pang isn't too good with finding analogous comparisons

Unless it is in poetry haha

I'll get better at it guys..I promise D=

On the plus side...I'm not too shabby at psychological and strategical arguments.. =p

 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!