Must have been my first Metallica concert, back in '87. 
What makes you think that I would include it?
Huh? Are you taking people at their word? 'Cause it really seems to me that you’re creating straw men.
So therefore either
(a) Simply because something is undemocratic, that doesn’t mean it’s bad or
(b) The Bill of Rights is bad
right? So which do you believe?
And then when you’re presented with such quotes, you say:
If what they said was irrelevent, why did you bring it up?
So we shouldn’t have gotten involved in WWII?
You’ve presented your explanation of how you’ve convinced yourself that it’s not guaranteed by the Constitution, but how can you possibly claim that it’s not mentioned? It’s right there!! “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
That’s like me asking “what laws would you vote against (not just of the ones that have actually been proposed, but out of all the possible ones)?” I’m not going to list every single situation in which I would feel justified killing someone. For one thing, I don’t think the SDMB can handle infinite posts, even ones of only aleph nought length.
Qwertyasdfg
That’s ridiculous. Rights are not given by the government. That’s why they’re called “rights” instead of “legalities”. Whether something is a right is debatable. Whether something is legal is a matter of fact.
So you’re not even willing to state for what reasons, other than self-defense you might shoot in the head:[ul]
[li]Me, as an officer of the court[/li][li]My brother-in-law, the cop[/li][li]My good friend, the Border Patrol agent[/li][li]My other friend, the judge[/li][li]My former colleague, the state legislator[/li][/ul]But you freely admit that there are “infinite” reasons you might kill us all, and you reserve the right to do so.
Yeah, I’m thinking it might be a good idea to place some substantive restrictions on the right to bear arms. After all, it’s just self-defense to take away the guns of somebody who threatens to harm me.
There are none. I would only kill in defense of my self or another.
I never threatened to harm you. If you’re saying that because I said that I would kill in self defense, that I would kill you, then you must be planning on hurting me.
And are you going to actually respond to my points, or just continue the ad hominem attacks?
Ad hominem = attacking the poster rather than the argument. I have said nothing about you, except for questioning what your personal position is. Speaking of which, how am I supposed to reconcile these two statements of yours:
Is it just me, or are #1 and #2 pretty much mutually exclusive?
Hey, minty, you called me into this discussion and then when I post, I’m chopped liver! 
Some people think that the war on drugs violates their rights. Does that justify dealers killing police officers?
The bottom line, which Senor, Ryan and others have expressed throughout this debate is that they want guns so that they have the power to do what they want, regardless of the law. Regardless of your talk about “preserving the republic” you feel that you are capable of being the ultimate arbiter of what is right or wrong. Certainly you can’t be bothered with what a majority wants. You’d like to circumvent any governmental authority you do not agree with, and kill any one who stands in your way. After all, SenorBeef did talk about killing police officers if taxes were too high (and don’t tell me that was a “random example” because we all know it was randomly picked from your unwritten list of “reasons to kill people.”)
Since you talk of natural rights, I’ll remind you of the state of nature, when there’s no governmental authority. We create government because when everyone has total power (and at the same time, no power), life sucks. You would like to return to this.
Ack! Where are my manners, David B! An excellent Staff Report indeed, even though it didn’t quite address the question I was hoping it would. Clearly, though, that was the fault of the questioner, and not the esteemed member of the Straight Dope Advisory Board whose answer was factual and rational in a way that these debates usually are not.
Thank you.
You can wipe that brown stuff off your nose now.
But that’s the best part! :eek:
It’d be more productive if you clarified your statement. It was a bit too subtle for me. What was your point in saying that?
In the same manner that it’s self defense for Stalin to kill 25 million potential dissenters.
**
Good question. Obviously, the answer seems to be “no”, but I can’t think of a way to objectively quantify where a line could be drawn.
**
Really? Does that mean as soon as I get my evil gun, I’ll start living the life of an outlaw, raping and pillaging where I please?
**
I am the ultimate arbiter in choosing whether or not to defend myself.
**
A majority has no right to deprive people of natural rights. That’s all I said.
**
Yeah, exactly. I’d like to own evil guns [which I apparently can’t do now], so I can start my lawless spree of rape and pillage.
**
You asked for an example of a situation in which people may feel oppressed. I gave you one.
This is funny. You’ve characterized me as a guy who wants the right to own guns so he can go on a lawless killing spree, and blow up anyone who disagrees with him.
Either, your characterization is a bit off, or I’m only on SDMB for long enough to rest before I kill a few more cute little children to protest anti-murder laws.
In any case, we’ve existed as a country - with a government, too! - while recognizing people’s right to bear arms for 200+ years now. Are you saying that because I advocate maintaining that same stance, I’m somehow advocating return to the days of utter lawlessness? You’re not making sense. You’re just going on a laughable crusade to paint me as some sort of anti-law anti-government psychotic killer.
You’ve clearly implied that I am not fit to own a gun.
How so?
Qwertyasdfg
The issue is not whether people think that their rights are being violated, but rather whether they are being violated.
No, we have never said that.
I am the ultimate arbiter of what I consider to be right and what I consider to be wrong. Do you have a problem with my position? Do you think it’s wrong? Do you think there’s someone else that I should let choose for me (let me guess: you)?
We feel that no one else has a right to claim that they have more authority to be the arbiter of right and wrong, and since these people have the ability to get guns, we should too.
Of course I can.
You have repeatedly stated that, and I have repeatedly said that you are wrong. Your insistence on falsely presenting my views despite repeated corrections indicates a fondness for dishonesty and an adversion to real discussion.
Simply because the two concepts involve the word “nature”, that does not mean that they are in any way connected. In the “state of nature”, there is no enforcement of natural rights.
The “state of nature” and the totalitarian state are not the only two possibilities.
Again, I ask you to stop speaking for me.
Wow, Hitler and Stalin posts in the same thread. If you Pol Pot, you’ll have the trifecta!
So, on what basis do you assert that “substantive restictions on the right to bear arms” is, like, in the same freakin’ galaxy as killing 25,000,000 people? Let’s see, in the European Union alone . . . 15 member nations with substantial to insurmountable gun restrictions, 25M dead people each . . . that adds up to 375 million dead people.
Is the phrase “sense of proportion” one you’ve come across before?
What makes something a “natural” right, other than “cause I say so”?
Ryan:
By all means, you can be the arbiter of what you think is right. But guns give you the ability to easily kill on the basis of these beliefs. Guns empower you to be judge, jury, and executioner.
You (and I am basing this on your last post, not speaking for you) are adversed to majority rule, despotism, and anarchy. What kind of government do you want?
And by the way, they are related in as much as every philosopher I know of who talked about “natural rights” also talked about the state of nature in the same breath. They’re also related in that, when everyone does whatever they’d like, you get the state of nature.
#1: “I’ll kill 'em they deny rights, which I refuse to define!”
#2: “I will only kill in self-defense.”
#1: “I’ll kill 'em if they deny rights, which I refuse to define!”
Aha. This is a matter of opinion, not fact. You think that gun control violates your rights. I disagree. Your killing to protect your guns is just as much justified in your mind as a dealer’s killing to protect his drugs. To me they’re equally reprehensible.
That should have said:
Your killing to protect your guns is just as much justified in your mind as a dealer’s killing to protect his drugs in his mind. To me they’re equally reprehensible.