Let's try this again : Right To Bear Arms Vs. Freedom of Speech

[TurtleDude]

If both sides have weapons everyone loses a lot. If neither side has arms then who prevails?

so you like it when a 98 pound woman is being targeted for rape by a 200 pound 20 year old college jock? if she has a gun and he has a gun, she wins half the time

if neither does, she loses every time

 

[Morrow]

If I can easily kill you, I will get freedom of speech. If I have no arms, you can silence my right to speak rather easily.

Golden Rule-He who has the arms make the rules

Yea , though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death , I shall fear no evil because I am the baddest mother*****er in the valley !

I believe the golden rule is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

which I have to say I perfer Jesus's to your interpretation

 

[Synch]

What a crock! Look at Iraq. We have all the arms, all the technology and we're losing the war. Ultimately if there's ever a solution in Iraq it will be through words not weapons.

What does the Iraq Occupation have to do with my rights to freedom of speech?

 

[talloulou]

I believe the golden rule is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

which I have to say I perfer Jesus's to your interpretation

You do know Jesus was strung up on a cross for no apparent reason? :shock: Pacifism can get you killed.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

No offense, Hatuey, but you kinda walked yourself into this one. Any thread that has anything to do with 'Bearing Arms' will be nothing more than another thread arguing about the importance of the 2nd Amendment. So let me speak to the importance of the 1st Amendment. Our founding fathers placed it first for a reason; undoubtedly they felt it was the most important freedom to build a nation upon. The American Revolution itself can be seen as a fight for first amendment rights. Speaking out against the Brittish crown, speaking out against the Church of England, protesting taxation, protesting anything, not having taxation without a voice in government, all these things that were denied colonial American citizens were things that the first amendment provided. These were the things that our founding fathers found to be so important to revolt against Great Britain and to place as our most important freedom.

Yes, fighting the American Revolution required 'arms', showing their importance, and without them there would be no United States. But without the principles of freedom of speech to fight for, there wasn't much of a point of fighting to begin with. In the vein of this thread, however, I must agree with the Second Amendment supporters; both freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are important and cannot be seperated. If you lose one, the other goes, too. So, because of this, I will not vote.

If freedom of speech is the foundation that our nation is built on, and the right to bear arms protects that freedom, consider that without the foundation, protection is irrelevant, and without the protection, the foundation can be eliminated.

 

[FreeThinker]

Galen I agree with you.

However,

I hate you with a passion.

So I'm going to say I hope the forest and cabin that you live in catch a spark from cali, incinerating you and your siblings. All 19 of them.

 

[AcePylut]

The right to bear arms is the ONE right that guarantees all other rights.

Something the ACLU would do well to remember.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

This is an easy one: if I was forced to choose, I'd pick the freedom of speech. I haven't been forced to choose yet, and I still choose the freedom of speech, and if I could, I'd eliminate the right to bear arms.

I know I'm going to be inundated with people telling me they'll just shoot my *** and make me shut up with my free speaking, but out of curiosity: why are all you big strong gunslingers here arguing on this forum instead of out shooting the asses of people you disagree with? Could it be that the government you stand so strong against nonetheless has the power to imprison or kill you if you commit crimes, despite your massive firepower? Could it be that you have morals and ethics -- learned through communication, through speech and written words -- that keep you from resorting to deadly force for insufficient reason?
If we rely on guns to keep us free, then we will never be free of guns. I'm not interested in becoming Beretta's bitch to avoid being the US government's.

 

[jfuh]

Then ones who prevail are the ones who are the strongest and most numerous.

Same is applicable to those who have arms. Those with the most highly advanced and power will win over those that aren't as such most of the time.
Why must my preservation of my rights rest on my ability to kill another?

 

[jfuh]

You must be pessimistic.
If both sides have arms one side or the other wins. if they have no arms and only freedom of speech the oppressors win because nobody listens.

who would be the oppressor? The rational rests on that one side is the oppressor already, in which case arms or no arms the oppressor will still oppress and no you would not be able to take your gun and shoot him out simply because he's looking at you wrongly.

 

[jfuh]

so you like it when a 98 pound woman is being targeted for rape by a 200 pound 20 year old college jock? if she has a gun and he has a gun, she wins half the time

if neither does, she loses every time

Win? Since when has killing someone been winning? You've been playing too many video games. A gun does not do anything except serve as a false sense of security for your case in point.
It would not be a 50 50 probability. The 200 lbs jock still has the distinct advantage of being 200lbs and a jock. In otherwords not suffering as fatal a wound or as serious blood loss as would the 98 lbs woman.
Then tell me this, if she has the gun, and since most rape instances contain an element of surprise, she'd never get to her gun before she was already pinned to the ground with 200 lbs of dead weight on her. So your hypothetical experiment is riddled with flaws. The gun will not protect her if she can not get to it, which is the dominant case with rape - the woman does not have the ability to save herself.

 

[jfuh]

If neither side has arms then we no longer are operating on the planet Earth, so thus any such discussion is worthless.

The criminals are armed, and will continue to be armed. There's no stopping that. When was the last time the government was actually effective in enforcing prohibition over something there is a healthy demand for? That's right, never.

We are faced with two options, a society of unarmed civilians and armed criminals, or a society of armed criminals and a population with the option to arm themselves as well.

If we're gonna discuss Candyland politcs, by all means, but let's make sure that clarification is made.

This is simply just crap. Why? because practically every other industrialized nation on Earth bans arms for civilians and yet these nations nevertheless still have thier freedom of speech. Case in point Great Britain - in fact thier police on street patrol don't even carry arms and yet still they are capable of law enforcement.
If neither side has arms you can only say that you are likely not in N. America, you would still very much be on Earth.

 

[jfuh]

The right to bear arms is the ONE right that guarantees all other rights.

Something the ACLU would do well to remember.

How does the 2nd guarantee the other rights? The government aka oppressor would still have every ability to revoke all your rights and even being armed to the teeth you'd still either get shot or put behind bars if the government wanted to. Today that is all the easier as the government would only need to label you an "enemy combatant" aka "terrorist" and you wouldn't even be able to try your case fairly, you could be locked up indefinitely without trial.

In our democracy the only right that guarantees all the other rights is the first amendment because it gaurentees that there will be a free press that will report on the doings of the government to which the ppl would all rise up in response and overthrow the regime.
Case in point just the day before - the GOP had become infested with apologetic neocons that cared for only their own self-preservation in power.
Starting a war in Iraq for all the wrong reasons and even then not committing itself fully. And at every turn of event pointing the finger in the other direction in particular the "obstructionist democrats".
The 40% voting Americans decided that this was bullshit and overthrew the gop apologetics with votes, not guns. And no it was not because these voters were armed either and no our government does not fear the ppl because we have guns but because our nation is founded on the principle of freedom and equality and we would rather die for such rather then have our rights revoked. But without freedom of speech to "educate" the public about said wrong doings of the government and so on, you wouldn't even know to rise up with your "right of arms".
The most important right is freedom of speech.

 

[jfuh]

You can use the latter to obtain the former but not vise versa, therefore in order to maximize freedom it is only logical to have the rights to bear arms as a prerequisite because it can be utilized to fight the oppressor, while the oppressor can simply kill those spreading dissent even if you are granted freedom of speech.

I don't see the point of this thread though, these two are anything but mutually exclusive.

True that you can. Here's the question though. How would you know that the former has been taken away from you without the former?
In otherwords without the freedom of speech you wouldn't have known that you're rights have been taken away from you already and you then wouldn't have been able to rise up against your oppressor.
Additionally, if it is an oppressor, without the former you would not be able to communicate and congregate with other individuals to rise up against the oppressor because it'd only be you the lone ranger against god knows how many from the oppressor.

The later can enforce the former but would be rendered inpotent w/o the former.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I didnt say you cant have them. But if you were forced to pick one of them.

No contest. If there was some weird course of events that said I have to give up one or the other, I'll choose the right to bear arms for by that right I can better ensure my own ability to enjoy free speech.

I am quite happy that we have both rights, however, making it unnecessary to protect one with the other.

And if you say "I can't use one to get the other", then there isn't much point in having either is there? So the question would be moot.

 

[Vader]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
Benjamin Franklin

If I give up free speech for the safety of a personal firearm, I disserve neither.

If I give up a personal firearm to secure my speech, I deserve neither.

My answer is not on your poll.

I agree. You're asking us to give up what so many people have died to protect.

My answer is not on your poll either.

 

[TurtleDude]

What a crock! Look at Iraq. We have all the arms, all the technology and we're losing the war. Ultimately if there's ever a solution in Iraq it will be through words not weapons.

Not relevant skippy. think a bit before you act the bullheaded toro charging the red cape of my posts

 

[Morrow]

You do know Jesus was strung up on a cross for no apparent reason? :shock: Pacifism can get you killed.

Any more so than violence?
Same goal, different methods. And what sort of men come to power from violence? We lucked out, a lot of revolutions for freedom end up with dictators.

It is a lot more powerful to get your enemy to agree, than to kill him. I do prefer the freedom of speech to the 'right' to bear arms. That doesn't mean I don't want the 2nd ammendment to be protected though.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Yes, and when the bobbies come in contact with real criminals with real guns, something tells me they don't fare too well.

The guns are already here. There's no changing that. Criminals have enemies who have guns, and thus they have guns, and they're certainly not gonna give them up until their enemies do (and vise versa), and even if their enemies give them up, there's still a clear incentive to keep the gun. They banned hand guns in Chicago. Guess how well that's worked out.

If neither side has arms, then Jesus Christ himself has come and personally taken them away from everyone who has them. This is the same ridiculous argument that they use against us having nuclear weapons. The cat's out of the bag, and gun use has become engrained in our criminal culture. That's how it is. You can pretend that's not how it is, or wish that it were different, but that doesn't change anything.

Here's an interesting thought, though.
Have guns always been ingrained in our society? I have to assume that since our culture is originally descended from that of Great Britain, that guns are not an irrevocable part of us, since the English seem to have given up guns. Japan had a warrior culture -- though not a gun culture, so perhaps it isn't applicable -- that gave up their weapons. This seems to imply that it is possible for a society to change their stance on weapons. So if that is the case, then consider this: which right, the right to free speech or the right to bear arms, has a greater chance of eliminating the other over a long enough time frame? Is it more likely that a well-armed society would be able to suppress the urge to speak one's mind, or that a free-speaking and free-thinking society would be able to convince its members to lay down their arms? People have spoken of which right would have the greater chance of protecting the other -- but which right would have a greater chance of destroying the other?

 

[TurtleDude]

Here's an interesting thought, though.
Have guns always been ingrained in our society? I have to assume that since our culture is originally descended from that of Great Britain, that guns are not an irrevocable part of us, since the English seem to have given up guns. Japan had a warrior culture -- though not a gun culture, so perhaps it isn't applicable -- that gave up their weapons. This seems to imply that it is possible for a society to change their stance on weapons. So if that is the case, then consider this: which right, the right to free speech or the right to bear arms, has a greater chance of eliminating the other over a long enough time frame? Is it more likely that a well-armed society would be able to suppress the urge to speak one's mind, or that a free-speaking and free-thinking society would be able to convince its members to lay down their arms? People have spoken of which right would have the greater chance of protecting the other -- but which right would have a greater chance of destroying the other?

two points-England had a mass rejection of arms after the first world war as a reaction to that bloodshed. You might look into the rate of gun violence among white brits and white americans-its an interesting research project

 

[jfuh]

Yes, and when the bobbies come in contact with real criminals with real guns, something tells me they don't fare too well.

Yet even admist such instances GB still has not changed the ban on gun ownership. It simply does not validate the premise you've put out.

The guns are already here. There's no changing that. Criminals have enemies who have guns, and thus they have guns, and they're certainly not gonna give them up until their enemies do (and vise versa), and even if their enemies give them up, there's still a clear incentive to keep the gun. They banned hand guns in Chicago. Guess how well that's worked out.

Is Chicago expereincing a ban on Free speech? Or did it?

If neither side has arms, then Jesus Christ himself has come and personally taken them away from everyone who has them. This is the same ridiculous argument that they use against us having nuclear weapons. The cat's out of the bag, and gun use has become engrained in our criminal culture. That's how it is. You can pretend that's not how it is, or wish that it were different, but that doesn't change anything.

Criminal culture has little to do with free speech.

 

[Goobieman]

Retaining the right to arms guarantees the right to free speech.

 

[Goobieman]

Here's an interesting thought, though.
Have guns always been ingrained in our society? I have to assume that since our culture is originally descended from that of Great Britain, that guns are not an irrevocable part of us,

There have been guns in American homes since there were homes in America.
So, the answer is 'yes'.

 

[Goobieman]

Realistically, we're better off with the guns.

Think of this. You're a drug dealer. You have a gun. There's a competing drug dealer down the street, who also has a gun, and there are similarly competing drug dealers all over the city, who have guns, and would like to control the area that this drug dealer controls. Does this sound to hypothetical, cause it seems fairly realistic to me.

What ideas can you present that can make this guy lay down his gun. Well, if he's rational, the only thing you can say or do to get this guy's gun is to ensure that none of the other drug dealers have guns. If he's irrational, and gives up his gun, all that means is one way or another, someone else with a gun is going to be selling drugs in that area very soon.

Banning guns only disarms the law-abiding, who are not the problem.
Banning guns only empowers the criminals, who ARE the problem.

This is so obvious that the only sound conclusion is that the people who wish to ban guns know this, but don't care.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

. . . .
So unless you have some form of magical way to eliminate guns, and destroy all guns that are in existance, there's no way to get all of the guns out of the hands of criminals. The only way to do that is to remove the option of having a gun, and illegality isn't nearly enough to do that, considering we're talking about criminals, who clearly are not swayed away from doing something just because it's illegal.

And it's unrealistic. There's no way of eliminating guns. For whatever reason, things didn't get like that in England, but the reality is that they have gotten like that here, and there is no realistic way of changing that. Thus we are faced with the options of either having an armed criminal class and an unarmed law abiding public, or giving everyone the option of being armed, so that people know that if they do something to hurt an innocent, there is a good chance that that innocent is packing heat and willing to defend him/herself.

That's how things are, we can either face reality head on, or we can bury our heads in the sand and keep telling ourselves that gun control is the way to stem gun violence.

Fair enough, but not the situation I was thinking about. I wasn't saying I'd put my speech up against a drug dealer with a gun and see who wins, I was saying that, over time, I think that speech would have a greater ability to eliminate guns than guns would to eliminate speech. Look at how guns are viewed now, versus in the past: a hundred years ago, two hundred years ago, would anyone even consider gun control? Among the common citizens, I mean; I realize an oppressive government would be only too happy to instill gun control. But now, despite all of the heinous crime and the protection that guns offer us from that, there are movements to eliminate guns. Whether or not they are successful, they represent a paradigm shift, a change in thought processes, that could only have been accomplished through free speech and the exchange of ideas. If this continues, isn't it possible that our society will move away from gun ownership and toward the mindset that Britain had when it eliminated guns?

If it is reasonable to think so, then doesn't that show that free speech has more power than guns? Because what chance do guns really have to eliminate free speech? Even in the worst, most oppressive and violent dictatorships in history, has the urge to speak out ever really been quashed by force of arms?