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

[Goobieman]

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.

Isnt this a silly thing to discuss?

The quesion, as I take it, is which would you rather have?
If you have free speech, but no means to secure it, how do you keep it?
If you have the means to secure free speech, how do you not have it?

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...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.

And outright lies, believed by people that know no better.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Coffeesaint writes

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?

Free speech cannot stop those determined to use guns for nefarious or destructive reasons, especially those determined to use guns to obtain power for themselves.

Guns however can absolutely enforce a policy prohibiting free speech and so inhibit anybody from telling the truth or expressing dissent or objection that a dictator can be....well....a dictator. Totalitarian governments can virtually shut down the free expression of ideas, art, or commentary, and they do it with the force of guns available to them but not the masses.

Guns also can absolutely ensure that a right to free speech shall not be infringed.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Coffeesaint writes


Free speech cannot stop those determined to use guns for nefarious or destructive reasons, especially those determined to use guns to obtain power for themselves.

Guns however can absolutely enforce a policy prohibiting free speech and so inhibit anybody from telling the truth or expressing dissent or objection that a dictator can be....well....a dictator. Totalitarian governments can virtually shut down the free expression of ideas, art, or commentary, and they do it with the force of guns available to them but not the masses.

Guns also can absolutely ensure that a right to free speech shall not be infringed.

I absolutely disagree. If a totalitarian government can "virtually" ensure that free speech is eliminated, then free speech has not been eliminated; I cannot say for certain, but as far as I know, there has never been a dictatorship that has managed to totally eliminate protest, dissent, or truth, let alone poetry and art. The harder a tyrant clamps down on those things, the harder people strive to find a way to express them nonetheless. The important point for me is, the worst a tyrant can do is kill someone, but there are people (and I would consider myself one) who would be willing to die to express the truth. Falun Gong in China, Boris Pasternak and Solzhenitsyn among others in Russia -- has there ever been a dictatorship that does not have an underground protest movement?

As for guns ensuring free speech, I don't think they're necessary to keep it at least alive, and I don't believe they can save the people from having their right infringed (though not eliminated entirely). I just don't believe that an armed populace can truly fight a determined despotic government militarily. And the most powerful weapon a despotic government can use against an armed populace? Propaganda. Words. Speech.

I apologize if this response is brief and incomplete, I've gotta get dressed and start my day, but frist...

Who knows? It could be possible, but the chances aren't good enough that it'd be worth banking on. Good strategy closes doors, but then when you lose, you're ****ed. For us to dedicate ourselves to the goal of turning society away from guns, we close many doors, like that of having a populace that's willing and able to defend itself, and if in the end it doesn't end up working, then we end up with a bunch of defenseless unarmed people, and criminals who love guns so much that they weren't swayed by the cultural shift.

You can talk to someone, and he can let you convince him. He doesn't need your permission to shoot you. That's a fundamental problem in your logic.

True, but the criminal does need to have society's permission to shoot me. The only way we can prevent the use of force is with a threat of greater force, and society is the source of that greater power. If society could impose enough of a sanction on the criminal, then he wouldn't shoot me -- I don't believe that anything else would prevent that occurrence. Absolutely, if I was armed myself, I could fight him off, but I think we can see that guns don't prevent armed criminals entirely.

I think that our society's belief in the individual's right and responsibility to bear arms and protect himself and his property is part of the reason why criminals are allowed to get away with killing people. When we hear of a person getting killed by an armed criminal, how many of us think, "See? That guy should have had a gun; then this never would have happened." Honestly, if you folks all heard that I had been killed by an armed criminal, wouldn't you feel that it was proof that gun control was wrong?

The problem with this is that it puts the responsibility for preventing gun crime on the individual, which implies that society sanctions it. There is an element in the American mindset that says that a criminal with a gun must be killed in a showdown with the law-abiding citizen; we see every crime as the OK Corral. And when the law-abiding citizen is not armed, we hold him responsible -- not the criminal. That is why criminals are still willing to use guns, because there is a part of us that blames the victim, and not the killer.

If we could change that, and hold the criminal solely reponsible -- say, by stigmatizing guns as well as crime, by stigmatizing murder entirely instead of accepting state-sanctioned killing and killing in self-defense -- then we might be able to punish the criminals who use guns completely enough that they might stop using them.

All I know is, arming the general populace doesn't seem to be doing a whole lot to prevent crime. Maybe the solution is more guns, but I think it is a society that hates guns in every way.

 

[Goobieman]

I absolutely disagree. If a totalitarian government can "virtually" ensure that free speech is eliminated, then free speech has not been eliminated;

Absolutely flalse.
As soon as "free speech" has been outlawed, your right to free sppech has been eliminated. That you might get away with "I hate Hitler" it doesnt mean you have the right to say it, i just means you got away with it -- the fact that if you're caught and will go to jail (or worse) means that you dotn have the right.

I cannot say for certain, but as far as I know, there has never been a dictatorship that has managed to totally eliminate protest, dissent, or truth, let alone poetry and art.

As noted above, they dont have to "totally eliminate it". Your yardstick here is invalid.

As for guns ensuring free speech, I don't think they're necessary to keep it at least alive, and I don't believe they can save the people from having their right infringed (though not eliminated entirely). I just don't believe that an armed populace can truly fight a determined despotic government militarily.

I suggest you read a little more American history.

True, but the criminal does need to have society's permission to shoot me.

No he doesnt. He pulls the trigger, and you're shot. he doesnt ask anyone's permission, and he does it regardless what anyone else thinks.

The only way we can prevent the use of force is with a threat of greater force, and society is the source of that greater power.

Like when the armed populace is more powerful that the government -- right?

If society could impose enough of a sanction on the criminal, then he wouldn't shoot me

You mean if there is sufficient punishment to deter the criminal.
Presemtly, life imprisinment and capital punishment doesnt do that. What more do you suggest?

Absolutely, if I was armed myself, I could fight him off, but I think we can see that guns don't prevent armed criminals entirely.

Another invalid yardstick -- they dont NEED to prevent them entirely to be an effective defense.

I think that our society's belief in the individual's right and responsibility to bear arms and protect himself and his property is part of the reason why criminals are allowed to get away with killing people.

WOW.
If there's an example of a "non-sequitur" in the dictionary, its the above statement.

The problem with this is that it puts the responsibility for preventing gun crime on the individual, which implies that society sanctions it.

Another non-sequitur.
In any event, you are responsible for your safety, not society.

There is an element in the American mindset that says that a criminal with a gun must be killed in a showdown with the law-abiding citizen; we see every crime as the OK Corral.

Strawman. No one makes such an argument. No one.

And when the law-abiding citizen is not armed, we hold him responsible -- not the criminal.

Another strawman -- everyone, except the apologists defending the criminals "reasons" holds the criminal responsible.

That is why criminals are still willing to use guns, because there is a part of us that blames the victim, and not the killer.

That's -Incredibly- inane.
Criminals are still uing guns because they are an effective tool for getting what they want.

If we could change that, and hold the criminal solely reponsible -- say, by stigmatizing guns as well as crime, by stigmatizing murder entirely instead of accepting state-sanctioned killing and killing in self-defense -- then we might be able to punish the criminals who use guns completely enough that they might stop using them.

Given the strawmen and leaps of logic you;ve used to support his "conclusion", the only possible response here is that your conclusion is usnound.

All I know is, arming the general populace doesn't seem to be doing a whole lot to prevent crime.

How many people use a gun each year to protect themselves?
Each time they do, thats a prevented crime.

 

[ModerateDem]

who would be the oppressor?

In the case of the constitution the Government was the oppressor. In the case of Ordinary life today anyone who seeks to silence you, or harm you, or even kill you 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.

Not necessarily. the oppressor is not an act it is a person "one who seeks to opress." You are confusing the act of opression which would be happening and the person who desires to opress.

An example of countering opression: Would you be able to mug me, Beat me up, or threaten me in any fashion if I had a gun a gun pointed at your head?

Or better yet an example of opression: would you say whatever you wanted to say as it pertains to freedom of speech, that I did not like, If I had a gun pointed at your head?

Now consider this, Would you be able to say whatever you wanted if we both had a gun pointed at each other?

 

[jfuh]

In the case of the constitution the Government was the oppressor. In the case of Ordinary life today anyone who seeks to silence you, or harm you, or even kill you would be the oppressor.

In the case of the constitution then, will the 2nd amendment in any way matter against the government? Sure in 1776 through the earlier half of the 19th century perhaps but today? Hence the 2nd would be unable to gaurentee the right of free speech at all.

Not necessarily. the oppressor is not an act it is a person "one who seeks to opress." You are confusing the act of opression which would be happening and the person who desires to opress.

An example of countering opression: Would you be able to mug me, Beat me up, or threaten me in any fashion if I had a gun a gun pointed at your head?

Under this circumstance then even if I had a gun I still wouldn't be able to do anything - given the immediacy of the bullet to my skull.

Or better yet an example of opression: would you say whatever you wanted to say as it pertains to freedom of speech, that I did not like, If I had a gun pointed at your head?

in this situation obviously no. However nor would a gun in my hand at this point matter either.

Now consider this, Would you be able to say whatever you wanted if we both had a gun pointed at each other?

This is under the premise that we are at an equal stance. And even then, it's unlikely that I nor you would say "anything" given that neither would want to escalate the situation to the point where we'd be pulling the trigger. So even then, you would not be able to say "whatever you wanted".

However the situation here is the contrast of two rights and which is more important. The premise has gone that arms gaurentees free speech, however as with your thought experiments above this only holds true if the two individuals are on equal standing.
Yet, today, I do not gaurentee my neighbors rights nor they mine. The constitution does so and only because of checks and balances of the 3 branches.
We the ppl re-check that balance through the free flow of information as is reported by the press or internet (as is here). Arms do not in any way protect the right of free speech, because rising up against the government - civil war has shown of the uselessness of such violent acts. Militia nor a bullet will be able to promise my rights of speech - perhaps during the early days of government in this country it may have, but certainly not today.

 

[Haggwarr]

Since Swedish law has banned gun ownership I have to say Freedom of speech

 

[TurtleDude]

Since Swedish law has banned gun ownership I have to say Freedom of speech

From what I hear, they would have been better off banning Vodka (I owned a Saab once-:roll: ). Its funny how nanny-state governments don't trust the children they care for to own guns

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Absolutely flalse.
As soon as "free speech" has been outlawed, your right to free sppech has been eliminated. That you might get away with "I hate Hitler" it doesnt mean you have the right to say it, i just means you got away with it -- the fact that if you're caught and will go to jail (or worse) means that you dotn have the right.

As soon as the right to bear arms has been outlawed, you no longer have the right to bear arms -- even if you then go shoot the congressmen who passed the law. Your guns will not protect your rights.

I suggest you read a little more American history.

200 years ago, people could rise up against the government. Today they could not.

Unless, that is, the revolution had the support of the general populace, so that they could gain new troops, weapons, supplies, information, etc., from the people and the government's forces could not. And how would a revolution gain the support of the majority of the people? Through free speech.

No he doesnt. He pulls the trigger, and you're shot. he doesnt ask anyone's permission, and he does it regardless what anyone else thinks.

If he fears the consequences of his actions, he will not pull the trigger.

Like when the armed populace is more powerful that the government -- right?

That has nothing to do with my point.

You mean if there is sufficient punishment to deter the criminal.
Presemtly, life imprisinment and capital punishment doesnt do that. What more do you suggest?

People need to hate guns and hate people who use them.

Another invalid yardstick -- they dont NEED to prevent them entirely to be an effective defense.

I disagree.

WOW.
If there's an example of a "non-sequitur" in the dictionary, its the above statement.

I disagree.

Another non-sequitur.
In any event, you are responsible for your safety, not society.

And this is proof of my above statements: you hold me responsible for protecting myself and my property; if my person or my property is taken away from me or harmed, you consider it my responsibility, my fault -- not society's.

Strawman. No one makes such an argument. No one.

You are right; I did exaggerate. But you just made such an argument, and so your statement here is an exaggeration as well.

Another strawman -- everyone, except the apologists defending the criminals "reasons" holds the criminal responsible.

Except you just told me that I am responsible for my own safety. So you hold me responsible, and you are lying here.

That's -Incredibly- inane.
Criminals are still uing guns because they are an effective tool for getting what they want.

And part of the reason that they are an effective tool is that they are seen as acceptable; society does not hate guns, and it does not hate those who use them. If the stigma of using a gun was bad enough, they would no longer be effective tools and criminals would stop using them.

Given the strawmen and leaps of logic you;ve used to support his "conclusion", the only possible response here is that your conclusion is usnound.

Given your lies and contradictions, I will assume your analysis of my argument is poor.

How many people use a gun each year to protect themselves?
Each time they do, thats a prevented crime.

How many crimes are committed each year? For each one, that is an unprevented crime.

 

[Goobieman]

As soon as the right to bear arms has been outlawed, you no longer have the right to bear arms -- even if you then go shoot the congressmen who passed the law. Your guns will not protect your rights.

I'll take that as a concession of the point.

200 years ago, people could rise up against the government. Today they could not.

Because -you- say so?
And even if they are doomed to failure, don't they have the right to try?

Unless, that is, the revolution had the support of the general populace, so that they could gain new troops, weapons, supplies, information, etc., from the people and the government's forces could not. And how would a revolution gain the support of the majority of the people? Through free speech.

You're confusing "communication" with "free speech".
One is a legal concept, the other is a practical concept. That you can communicate ideas and information to someone else doesnt in any way mean you have the right to do so.

If he fears the consequences of his actions, he will not pull the trigger.

That's not related to what you said. You said "he has to have permission of society". He doesn't. He acts on his own, and doesnt give a hoot in hell as to who says he can't.

That has nothing to do with my point.

Its your point, applied to a similar situation.
If you dont find it valid, then you need to rethink your point.

People need to hate guns and hate people who use them.

This is as idiotic as any statement I've ever seen, from you or anyone else.

And in any event, you didnt answer the question:
Given the punisments we have now for violent crime, and that this level of punishment doesnt deter criminals, what sort of punishment do you suggest WOULD deter them?

I disagree.

You do? Why?
Why do guns need to prevent EVERY crime for them to be an effective defense from crime?

I disagree.

You do? Why?
How, specifically, does the idea that you are responible for protecting yourself allow criminals to get away with killing people?

And this is proof of my above statements: you hold me responsible for protecting myself and my property; if my person or my property is taken away from me or harmed, you consider it my responsibility, my fault -- not society's.

Strawman.
Stating that you (as opposed to society) are responsible for protecting you doesnt absolve the criminal of the responsibility for killing you.
The criminal committed the act; he is responsible. You are responsible for protecting yourself; this does not in any way mean that if you fail to do so, the criminal is absolved of his resposnibility for killing you.

You are right; I did exaggerate. But you just made such an argument, and so your statement here is an exaggeration as well.

You did exaggerate, and so, as support for your argument, this point is meaningless -- but that's what happens when you argue strawmen.

And my statement that no one argues that "a criminal with a gun must be killed in a showdown with the law-abiding citizen; we see every crime as the OK Corral." isnt an exaggeration -- no one makes this argument. If you disagree, then find me a quote.

Except you just told me that I am responsible for my own safety. So you hold me responsible, and you are lying here.

As mentioned before, arguiong that you (as aopposed to society) are responsible for your safety doesnt absolve a criminal for being responsible for killing you.

And part of the reason that they are an effective tool is that they are seen as acceptable;

No, its wholly because they are an effective tool, period. How society sees them is irrelevant to this.

society does not hate guns, and it does not hate those who use them. If the stigma of using a gun was bad enough, they would no longer be effective tools and criminals would stop using them.

You're making the incredibly silly argument that if a criminal is willing to commit murder -- an act that society doesnt accept -- they wont use a weapon that society doesnt accept.
Please, explain how that is sound.

Given your lies and contradictions, I will assume your analysis of my argument is poor.

You can continue to delude yourself, if you want.
But, it might be better for you to accept reality as it is, not as you'd like it.

How many crimes are committed each year? For each one, that is an unprevented crime.

So? This is only relevant if "effective defense" means "stops every crime". It doesnt.
And you arent addressing the point here: numerous guns are used every year to stop crime -- the Clinton Administration estimated as many as 1.8 million times per year.. YOU may not see that as "not a whole lot", but I suppose that has more to do with your predisposition against guns than any rational evaluation of the facts.

 

[PoliticalActivist]

The rights to bear arms and the freedom of speech is both mentioned in the Constitution of the United States. First of all there is two terms that's used everyday when it comes to having a CCW, and that's Self-Defense and Protection your property and yourself. Freedom of speech means to speak out against those who misuse and abuse the 2nd admendment. However the law states that one do have the rights to bear arms, but one must qualify to obtain a written permit such as classes, and on the firing range training. The NRA would love to be in on this forum. I see that most on this forum seem to write a book when posting their opinions or facts, and what really needs to be looked at is a person does have rights to believe whatever they want to believe in. Well I guess I can be called the odd American because I have the rights to both of these issues that's mentioned on this forum. In closing the issue is within what the government tells us to do (That's law), but most of us take the matters into our own hands, and that's why we have so many rules,guidelines,and regulations.

 

[ModerateDem]

In the case of the constitution then, will the 2nd amendment in any way matter against the government? Sure in 1776 through the earlier half of the 19th century perhaps but today? Hence the 2nd would be unable to gaurentee the right of free speech at all.

Really? if the government sent an armed soldier to your house to silence any potential voice you might have. WOuld not the 2nd amendment work to keep that from happening?

Under this circumstance then even if I had a gun I still wouldn't be able to do anything - given the immediacy of the bullet to my skull.

You misunderstand the scenario. the Guy wants to do all of those things to you. You have the gun. Can he or could he oppress you since you have the gun and he does not. Possibly but highly unlikely given that he probably wants to live another day.

in this situation obviously no. However nor would a gun in my hand at this point matter either.

In this case the point of you having a gun is irrelevent. the scenario is explicit in what it asks in this case when you are oppressed with force you would not speak. Case and point.

This is under the premise that we are at an equal stance. And even then, it's unlikely that I nor you would say "anything" given that neither would want to escalate the situation to the point where we'd be pulling the trigger. So even then, you would not be able to say "whatever you wanted".

Problem is, the gun guarentees that you could say whatever you wanted no matter what. the other guy could not stop you you both have one pointed at one another. You are assuming the pther person or you would escalate this situation while disregarding the Idea that both of you most likely would like to live through it. it is like in the movies when you have the cop in a showdown wiht the criminal and they both end up staring at each other with a gun pointed at one another. Neither one shot at the other but they felt free to talk at will.

However the situation here is the contrast of two rights and which is more important. The premise has gone that arms gaurentees free speech, however as with your thought experiments above this only holds true if the two individuals are on equal standing.

Precisely. If there was no equal standing the person doing the oppression in example two would certainly have no trouble preventing free speech.

Yet, today, I do not gaurentee my neighbors rights nor they mine. The constitution does so and only because of checks and balances of the 3 branches.

And who protects the common people from misuses of powers by the government.

We the ppl re-check that balance through the free flow of information as is reported by the press or internet (as is here). Arms do not in any way protect the right of free speech, because rising up against the government - civil war has shown of the uselessness of such violent acts. Militia nor a bullet will be able to promise my rights of speech - perhaps during the early days of government in this country it may have, but certainly not today.

You are working from the premise that the government tells us everything that it does at every point in time. tell me how long did it take to uncover Bush's wiretapping? did you know about it the from the first moment they started doing it. The fact of the matter is that no matter how much free flowing information we have in this country the government does not tell us everything. it tells us only what it has to. And if the government gets out of control and decides that it is no longer suitable for us to have our rights we, with our guns, will resist and keep our rights. You all with only your free speech can fall with the rest to your oppressors.

 

[Goobieman]

It all comes down to the ability to project force.

Your right to arms, alone, gives you that ability. It is, in and of itself, a means to that end.

Your right to free speech, alone, is not.

 

[PoliticalActivist]

I think that its very selfish and self-centered for anyone to sign onto a forum,
flood the messageboard with a quote from someone, and dog the whole board with unnecessary BS. We all have the rights to agree or dis-agree that's the American way of doing things, and it does not take a lonngg drawn out message to get your point across. Believe me the Democrats do see things different then the Republicians, and the Republicians do see things different then the Independant party....everyone wants to be right and nobody wants to be wrong. The title of this forum Rights To Bear Arms and Freedom of Speech is both mentioned in the Constitution and the bill of rights. I have a question for the forum monitors? Is there a limit to a post line that's submitted to this forum? I am sure that there is a few who would agree with me when it comes to being reminded about what one said. As a Citizen I will always carry my firmarm on my side, and I will always express my opinions because I know I have the rights to speak.

 

[Goobieman]

I think that its very selfish and self-centered for anyone to sign onto a forum, flood the messageboard with a quote from someone, and dog the whole board with unnecessary BS.

Your presence here is voluntary.

 

[jfuh]

From what I hear, they would have been better off banning Vodka (I owned a Saab once-:roll: ). Its funny how nanny-state governments don't trust the children they care for to own guns

This really doesn't say how then the right to bear arms is applicable.

 

[jfuh]

Really? if the government sent an armed soldier to your house to silence any potential voice you might have. WOuld not the 2nd amendment work to keep that from happening?

No, it would not work. An armed trained soldier vs an armed civilian. I would most likely be silenced. Then is the flawed premise that the government would send only one soldier. Given the proper context then yes, I would absolutely be silenced.

You misunderstand the scenario. the Guy wants to do all of those things to you. You have the gun. Can he or could he oppress you since you have the gun and he does not. Possibly but highly unlikely given that he probably wants to live another day.

To clarify then who has the gun?
The scenario you presented, if I'm understanding correctly, has a gun to my head already. I am obviously silenced regardless of my being armed or unarmed. The muzzel is already on my skull.

In this case the point of you having a gun is irrelevent. the scenario is explicit in what it asks in this case when you are oppressed with force you would not speak. Case and point.

touche

Problem is, the gun guarentees that you could say whatever you wanted no matter what. the other guy could not stop you you both have one pointed at one another. You are assuming the pther person or you would escalate this situation while disregarding the Idea that both of you most likely would like to live through it. it is like in the movies when you have the cop in a showdown wiht the criminal and they both end up staring at each other with a gun pointed at one another. Neither one shot at the other but they felt free to talk at will.

The movies would be a huge fallacy as real life instances do not involve a noon showdown.
The gun gaurentees nothing except for the high probability of someone getting hurt. If you and I had guns pointed at each other do you honestly believe that we'd be talking about where the economy is going or where the war should go? No, we'd be talking about what got us into that situation (if at all) or how to de-escalate the situation.

Precisely. If there was no equal standing the person doing the oppression in example two would certainly have no trouble preventing free speech.

touche

And who protects the common people from misuses of powers by the government.

I know where you are going with this. so let me just say, the press. The free press is the gaurdian of accountability of the government. Guns by civilians will not mean anything against a government that is insistant on taking away our freedoms.
Now, one could argue that if it comes down to a president and congress admament on stealing our rights that some generals in the pentagon might start a coupe and would be proof of guns protecting our rights. But then again this is not an argument for right to bear arms as said by the 2nd amendment.

You are working from the premise that the government tells us everything that it does at every point in time.

No, quite the opposite, that it is the duty of the press to stand as the guardians of free speech. Sorry if that was confusing.

tell me how long did it take to uncover Bush's wiretapping? did you know about it the from the first moment they started doing it.

You've confused what I was saying. I did not know about the wiretaps until the NYtimes dutifully revealed them to the country. Which follows my premise.

The fact of the matter is that no matter how much free flowing information we have in this country the government does not tell us everything. it tells us only what it has to. And if the government gets out of control and decides that it is no longer suitable for us to have our rights we, with our guns, will resist and keep our rights. You all with only your free speech can fall with the rest to your oppressors.

You can resist, but to no avail. The rights have been taken.
However you leave the question lingering; being that how would you know your rights have been taken from you if there was no free speech, no free flow of information.
The gov may have already taken away that right - suspension of habeaus corpus for suspect terrorist and ability to hold said ppl indeffinetely - and you'd be none the wiser to get your arms to "resist".
Does an ant have the ability to resist your shoe from crushing it? It's not called resistance, it's called getting crushed. As would be the situation with "resisting" the government.

 

[TurtleDude]

This really doesn't say how then the right to bear arms is applicable.

and your comment is neither relevant nor amusing.

 

[jfuh]

and your comment is neither relevant nor amusing.

It's not meant to be amusing to you.
It's meant to point out that you are not supporting your own argument but drawing off topic completely.

 

[The Mark]

It would seem from my point of view that both the right to bear arms and the right of free speech are currently not completely ours.

Example: There are laws restricting the use of guns and who can legally have them. This, in my mind, constitutes infringement on the right to bear arms. While some of those laws I might agree with, I think that overall they have a negative effect on things

Example: There are currently laws that somewhat restrict the freedom of speech. While I might agree with some of those laws, and the reasons behind them, it still constitutes a limitation of free speech.

On a related topic, I personally think that much of the Press, Media, etc. is currently having a detrimental effect on the USA and many other countries around the world. Mainly because they do not exist to tell the public what actually happens in their area of coverage, but to tell the public one, all, or some combination of the following:

1. What they want the public to hear.
2. What they think the public wants to hear.
3. What the government of the area they are covering wants the public to hear.
4. What they think will generate the most income for them.
5. Some other reason for reporting something other than accurate news/info.

In short, I trust very few of the news sources, be they on TV, Radio, Internet, or some other media format. And those I do have some trust in are constantly on trial in my mind.

Incorrect, false, and misleading news sources have a deteramental effect on both the right to bear arms and free speech.

 

[jfuh]

It would seem from my point of view that both the right to bear arms and the right of free speech are currently not completely ours.

Example: There are laws restricting the use of guns and who can legally have them. This, in my mind, constitutes infringement on the right to bear arms. While some of those laws I might agree with, I think that overall they have a negative effect on things

Example: There are currently laws that somewhat restrict the freedom of speech. While I might agree with some of those laws, and the reasons behind them, it still constitutes a limitation of free speech.

On a related topic, I personally think that much of the Press, Media, etc. is currently having a detrimental effect on the USA and many other countries around the world. Mainly because they do not exist to tell the public what actually happens in their area of coverage, but to tell the public one, all, or some combination of the following:

1. What they want the public to hear.
2. What they think the public wants to hear.
3. What the government of the area they are covering wants the public to hear.
4. What they think will generate the most income for them.
5. Some other reason for reporting something other than accurate news/info.

In short, I trust very few of the news sources, be they on TV, Radio, Internet, or some other media format. And those I do have some trust in are constantly on trial in my mind.

Incorrect, false, and misleading news sources have a deteramental effect on both the right to bear arms and free speech.

:applaud: Well said

 

[Haggwarr]

From what I hear, they would have been better off banning Vodka (I owned a Saab once-:roll: ). Its funny how nanny-state governments don't trust the children they care for to own guns

Haha, yeah... from where did you hear that mate? Well anyways every Swede don't walk around with a bottle of vodka and a polar bear pet. Well except me of course, his name is stampy :roll:

And if we trust our kids so much, then why would we need to give them guns?
I've never felt threatened when I've been out, and I doubt I'd feel safer with a gun.

And Saab rocks, and that's the end of that chapter.

 

[Goobieman]

Incorrect, false, and misleading news sources have a deteramental effect on both the right to bear arms and free speech.

More importanrtly, the above illustrates why the argument that "no one gets hurt when the 1st amedment is abused" is unsound.

 

[TurtleDude]

Haha, yeah... from where did you hear that mate? Well anyways every Swede don't walk around with a bottle of vodka and a polar bear pet. Well except me of course, his name is stampy :roll:

And if we trust our kids so much, then why would we need to give them guns?
I've never felt threatened when I've been out, and I doubt I'd feel safer with a gun.

And Saab rocks, and that's the end of that chapter.

Saabs suck. in 50,000 mi les I went through two transmissions, two computer units and a couple other things. A similarly priced lexus 250 I drove for almost 300K miles with less problems.

any goverment that doesn't trust its citizens to own the same basic weapons its police can carry is not a government that should be trusted

 

[jfuh]

Saabs suck. in 50,000 mi les I went through two transmissions, two computer units and a couple other things. A similarly priced lexus 250 I drove for almost 300K miles with less problems.

maybe the driver's the problem? :2wave:

any goverment that doesn't trust its citizens to own the same basic weapons its police can carry is not a government that should be trusted

That's pretty much every government in the world.