- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,719
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
gun control means many things
laws designed to hassle honest people in the specious speculation that will somehow affect people already in violation of other laws only destroy liberty
laws that punish misuse (read USE) of weapons are sound, ones that impede citizens from possessing or obtaining the same weapons our tax dollars supply civilian employees of the government have no merit
There is no Constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court to have any weapon you want to have.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
This is a quote that oft showed up during PATRIOT Act discussions. However, given the recent shootings and the rise of some calling for further gun regulation, I would pose the question in relation to gun control. The right to bear arms, being inherent within the Constitution, seems as if it would qualify as an "essential liberty". Is utilizing the quote or principle behind the quote of Benjamin Franklin fair and useful when talking about the issue of gun regulatoin, control, or bans? Is there a belief that there are some Constitutional Rights, like the 4th amendment, that are "more important" than others, like the 2nd, in terms of placing regulation that hinders the individuals liberty? How does this quote relate to those arguments?
It's fair to use this quote, sure. However, the problem is that people don't know how to use it. I've seen this quote posted many times over the last few months, several times in debates I've been in, but whenever people post it, they don't defend it or explain why the person they're debating should accept it. They just post it, act like it speaks for itself and then go about their business. In fact, that's what people usually do for any quote or saying that they use - just decide that the argument is so self-evident that it doesn't need to be defended."Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
This is a quote that oft showed up during PATRIOT Act discussions. However, given the recent shootings and the rise of some calling for further gun regulation, I would pose the question in relation to gun control. The right to bear arms, being inherent within the Constitution, seems as if it would qualify as an "essential liberty". Is utilizing the quote or principle behind the quote of Benjamin Franklin fair and useful when talking about the issue of gun regulatoin, control, or bans? Is there a belief that there are some Constitutional Rights, like the 4th amendment, that are "more important" than others, like the 2nd, in terms of placing regulation that hinders the individuals liberty? How does this quote relate to those arguments?
There is no Constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court to have any weapon you want to have. This discussion IS NOT about depriving anyone of their Second Amendments rights. It is about attempting to find out how the American people want to define what those rights are in actual practice.
To portray this as anything else is to engage in hyperbolic over the top intellectual fraud.
I voted wrong."Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
This is a quote that oft showed up during PATRIOT Act discussions. However, given the recent shootings and the rise of some calling for further gun regulation, I would pose the question in relation to gun control. The right to bear arms, being inherent within the Constitution, seems as if it would qualify as an "essential liberty". Is utilizing the quote or principle behind the quote of Benjamin Franklin fair and useful when talking about the issue of gun regulatoin, control, or bans? Is there a belief that there are some Constitutional Rights, like the 4th amendment, that are "more important" than others, like the 2nd, in terms of placing regulation that hinders the individuals liberty? How does this quote relate to those arguments?
..Thunder...I actually disagree iwth the notion of hte bi-polar outlook of the quote itself. I think that term fits better with those who often paraphrase it. Ben's quote does not negate the notion that liberty CAN, and perhaps even SHOULD, be given up for security at times...however so often those that utilize it do seem to present a version of the quote that would lead one to follow it. Ben's quote actually seems to be rooted in a world with shades of grey as a means of judging that greyness and which, in general, way is the wise one to follow in his opinion depending on the factors involved.
"Is there a belief that there are some Constitutional Rights, like the 4th amendment, that are "more important" than others, like the 2nd, in terms of placing regulation that hinders the individuals liberty? How does this quote relate to those arguments?
My stance on gun control is the same on domestic safety: liberty may be sacrificed for security, but I require a good cost benefit ratio. In both cases, you often end up with large amounts of laws that intrude upon citizens and yet are completely ineffective in keeping the safe. Significant portion of gun control laws are created by people utterly ignorant about the functional abilities of firearms and end up completely useless. Many weapons are banned based on entirely meaningless qualities like bayonet mounts and flash hiders.
Gun control should be about an informed and rational analysis of firearms and their distribution to minimize gun violence and maximize personal freedoms. Instead it is dominate by ideologues who simply push their emotional reactions rather than carefully considering the consequences of their policies on the American people.
My stance on gun control is the same on domestic safety: liberty may be sacrificed for security, but I require a good cost benefit ratio. In both cases, you often end up with large amounts of laws that intrude upon citizens and yet are completely ineffective in keeping the safe. Significant portion of gun control laws are created by people utterly ignorant about the functional abilities of firearms and end up completely useless. Many weapons are banned based on entirely meaningless qualities like bayonet mounts and flash hiders.
Gun control should be about an informed and rational analysis of firearms and their distribution to minimize gun violence and maximize personal freedoms. Instead it is dominate by ideologues who simply push their emotional reactions rather than carefully considering the consequences of their policies on the American people.
Getting it back ain't gonna be so easy either.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
This is a quote that oft showed up during PATRIOT Act discussions. However, given the recent shootings and the rise of some calling for further gun regulation, I would pose the question in relation to gun control. The right to bear arms, being inherent within the Constitution, seems as if it would qualify as an "essential liberty". Is utilizing the quote or principle behind the quote of Benjamin Franklin fair and useful when talking about the issue of gun regulatoin, control, or bans? Is there a belief that there are some Constitutional Rights, like the 4th amendment, that are "more important" than others, like the 2nd, in terms of placing regulation that hinders the individuals liberty? How does this quote relate to those arguments?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?