Because of our firearms there is a limit to how much we are censored. Wow, please, read that again. And one more time. I just want you to be absolutely sure that you wrote it. Um, I was unaware the censors had a bunch of civilians dropping by with guns in hand to make sure they aren't over-doing it. Sweet tap dancing christ man, are you serious?Dec45 wrote:
Sure... If the conditions conveniently match your scenario... Truth of the matter is, there's nothing to protect your freedom of speech. America has freedom of speech, yet I can't even accurately describe the amount of censorship this country's government puts on its people. But because of our firearms, there is a limit to which we can be censored. You can choose to take everything for granted, but I think you need a lesson on revolution. If the populace has a right to bear arms, the government cannot afford revolt. Not only that, but you have to take into consideration that the military is made up of the populace. Your view is completely passive and in the hands of those in power from the beginning. Mine is aggressive, and in the hands of the people from the beginning. Let the people regulate the government, not the other way around. Because words my friend, don't regulate shit...AchangelTyreal wrote:
Freedom of speech, duuuh. I can't believe why anyone would vote contrary to that. I'm sorry, you don't NEED guns, but the freedom to voice my opinion without fear of persecution, yeah I do need that. I'm actually genuinely surpised people are arguing for freedom to bear arms.
Dec45, you must eb joking me. Your saying the populace must be able to defend themselves? Ok, lets take 1000 townspeople, with no formnal training, no military knowledge, BUT they get all the rifles they want. And lets pit them against 100 marines. Yup. That is pretty clear who's gonna win. They're definitly gonna be able to defend themselves and their rights! Secondly, what good is freedom of speech. How about this. I'm in power. I don't like your opinion. You are not allowed to talk. I delete your post and forbid you from speaking your mind. Oh, but you've got a gun? Well, I'm still in power, so I still control the military, meet my marines. Not talking now are yah?
Poll
If you could have only one Which one Would you Choose?
| Freedom of Speech | 73% | 73% - 198 | ||||
| Right to Bear Arms | 26% | 26% - 72 | ||||
| Total: 270 | ||||||
I strongly disagree. A gun can put an immense amount of courage or hate in someone, and inherently inspire because of those two extremes alone.IG-Calibre wrote:
However the initial catalyst is always from speech - words can fill a heart with courage or hate, words can inspire, a gun cannot do any of these things.
A word can give sense to a World full of hate.Dec45 wrote:
I strongly disagree. A gun can put an immense amount of courage or hate in someone, and inherently inspire because of those two extremes alone.IG-Calibre wrote:
However the initial catalyst is always from speech - words can fill a heart with courage or hate, words can inspire, a gun cannot do any of these things.
I see his point though, and it's more inline with what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. You see, our founding fathers had a great mistrust of a large, standing army. This came from a long history of brutality shown, not only to the colonists but to native Brits as well, of the British Army.
One of the large struggles of the writing of the Constitution was how to keep themselves safe without forming a large continental army. The solution was the right to bear arms, so that the people wouldn't have to fear their own army like they did in Britain, but could also defend themselves if necessary. Over time we've clearly strayed from that ideology, but paranoia of government is something that's as American as apple pie and Texas.
One of the large struggles of the writing of the Constitution was how to keep themselves safe without forming a large continental army. The solution was the right to bear arms, so that the people wouldn't have to fear their own army like they did in Britain, but could also defend themselves if necessary. Over time we've clearly strayed from that ideology, but paranoia of government is something that's as American as apple pie and Texas.
Or hate to a world full of sense.sergeriver wrote:
A word can give sense to a World full of hate.Dec45 wrote:
I strongly disagree. A gun can put an immense amount of courage or hate in someone, and inherently inspire because of those two extremes alone.IG-Calibre wrote:
However the initial catalyst is always from speech - words can fill a heart with courage or hate, words can inspire, a gun cannot do any of these things.
Holy shit...you agreeded with me again...this is like the 3rd time this year..wow.CameronPoe wrote:
You can say whatever the fuck you like when you're brandishing a big fuck-off gun!!! The anarchy might be a bit of a problem though...
I realize being a condescending smart-ass to anyone anonymously through the internet is hip these days, but save it for the kids will ya? I'm not being disrespectful. Why are you?AchangelTyreal wrote:
Because of our firearms there is a limit to how much we are censored. Wow, please, read that again. And one more time. I just want you to be absolutely sure that you wrote it. Um, I was unaware the censors had a bunch of civilians dropping by with guns in hand to make sure they aren't over-doing it. Sweet tap dancing christ man, are you serious?
There are measures large and small throughout this country which undermine the intensity of free speech. The only thing that ensures we can never lose our foundation of this right, is the fact that we have the firepower to enforce it. This doesn't require people literally 'dropping by' with guns, threatening people. That's a childish idea to even suggest. Believe it or not, after extensive research and lessons of historical experience, many people don't look at the American government and think to themselves, "Wow... What a fine candidate to surrender my only line of defense to."
Depends on the speaker.Not wrote:
Or hate to a world full of sense.sergeriver wrote:
A word can give sense to a World full of hate.Dec45 wrote:
I strongly disagree. A gun can put an immense amount of courage or hate in someone, and inherently inspire because of those two extremes alone.
When Im holding my semi auto .22 in my hand I feel a lot more confident then when Im holding a switch blade in my hand. Ive been jumped before....I won that but I would of loved a gun so I wouldnt of had to put a blade 4 in into his leg. Could of just made him back off.
Maybe... But a word can't give sense to a world full of guns. Let's be realistic... Guns themselves aren't going anywhere.sergeriver wrote:
A word can give sense to a World full of hate.Dec45 wrote:
I strongly disagree. A gun can put an immense amount of courage or hate in someone, and inherently inspire because of those two extremes alone.IG-Calibre wrote:
However the initial catalyst is always from speech - words can fill a heart with courage or hate, words can inspire, a gun cannot do any of these things.
Yeah but in this scenario - you have chosen your right to bare arms - but now you cannot talk about anything because the right to free speech has been forsaken, what use is your gun? all there would be would be paranoia fulled by everyone being perceived as a threat because they all have a gun, and, no one able to talk about anything.. no thanks, I don't think thats a society where I would choose to live in, but you're welcome to it..Dec45 wrote:
I strongly disagree. A gun can put an immense amount of courage or hate in someone, and inherently inspire because of those two extremes alone.GI-Calibre wrote:
However the initial catalyst is always from speech - words can fill a heart with courage or hate, words can inspire, a gun cannot do any of these things.
Take the Middle East as example, they're only using weapons from both sides. What did they achieve? Not peace. Weapons did nothing for peace there, and would do nothing for your safety at home. How many kids die every year because of their dad's weapons? A word can't kill you, but can safe a lot of lifes.Dec45 wrote:
Maybe... But a word can't give sense to a world full of guns. Let's be realistic... Guns themselves aren't going anywhere.sergeriver wrote:
A word can give sense to a World full of hate.Dec45 wrote:
I strongly disagree. A gun can put an immense amount of courage or hate in someone, and inherently inspire because of those two extremes alone.
This is interesting philosophy you're focusing on...IG-Calibre wrote:
Yeah but in this scenario - you have chosen your right to bare arms - but now you cannot talk about anything because the right to free speech has been forsaken, what use is your gun? all there would be would be paranoia fulled by everyone being perceived as a threat because they all have a gun, and, no one able to talk about anything.. no thanks, I don't think thats a society where I would choose to live in, but you're welcome to it..Dec45 wrote:
I strongly disagree. A gun can put an immense amount of courage or hate in someone, and inherently inspire because of those two extremes alone.GI-Calibre wrote:
However the initial catalyst is always from speech - words can fill a heart with courage or hate, words can inspire, a gun cannot do any of these things.
The same can be said vice-versa...
What good is free-speech, when your government has the right to easily ignore what its people ask for? What good is free-speech if you can still be oppressed? What good is free-speech, if your land is invaded? Speaking your opinion is a beautiful right, don't get me wrong. But one right can ensure both, while the other is purely for aesthetics.
Last edited by Dec45 (2006-11-11 15:48:16)
They're not dead yet. Once one side is dead, there will be peace.sergeriver wrote:
Take the Middle East as example, they're only using weapons from both sides. What did they achieve? Not peace. Weapons did nothing for peace there, and would do nothing for your safety at home. How many kids die every year because of their dad's weapons? A word can't kill you, but can safe a lot of lifes.Dec45 wrote:
Maybe... But a word can't give sense to a world full of guns. Let's be realistic... Guns themselves aren't going anywhere.sergeriver wrote:
A word can give sense to a World full of hate.
Now you're talking about hypotheticals outside of the question presented... We're talking about individuals rights as citizens. Guns will always exist, no matter if civilians are allowed to possess them or not.sergeriver wrote:
Take the Middle East as example, they're only using weapons from both sides. What did they achieve? Not peace. Weapons did nothing for peace there, and would do nothing for your safety at home. How many kids die every year because of their dad's weapons? A word can't kill you, but can safe a lot of lifes.Dec45 wrote:
Maybe... But a word can't give sense to a world full of guns. Let's be realistic... Guns themselves aren't going anywhere.sergeriver wrote:
A word can give sense to a World full of hate.
Words can kill people, especially when they're spoken as orders from an insane leader.
what use is a government if it mass exterminates its civilians, because they don't have guns? who is left to govern? it's the armys job to have the weapons not the civiliansDec45 wrote:
This is interesting philosophy you're focusing on...IG-Calibre wrote:
Yeah but in this scenario - you have chosen your right to bare arms - but now you cannot talk about anything because the right to free speech has been forsaken, what use is your gun? all there would be would be paranoia fulled by everyone being perceived as a threat because they all have a gun, and, no one able to talk about anything.. no thanks, I don't think thats a society where I would choose to live in, but you're welcome to it..Dec45 wrote:
I strongly disagree. A gun can put an immense amount of courage or hate in someone, and inherently inspire because of those two extremes alone.
The same can be said vice-versa...
What good is free-speech, when your government has the right to easily ignore what its people ask for? What good is free-speech if you can still be oppressed? What good is free-speech, if your land is invaded? Speaking your opinion is a beautiful right, don't get me wrong. But one right can ensure both, while the other is purely for aesthetics.
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-11-11 15:57:31)
Where is the universal logic, that it is wise to entrust your protection solely to the government? No one mentioned mass extermination, and it isn't the only requisite to justify the right to bear arms. The truth of the matter in America, like many countries, is that the government is not run by the common people. We have a million flavors of ice cream, yet only two political parties who are in reality much more similar then different, and seem to make the same mistakes time and time again. If said government wasn't regulated by a small percentile of the high-end within the extreme financial gap, then such an argument would be much more valid in my opinion. Unfortunately, the government is hardly ever looking out for our best interest, or even asking us how we feel. A gun can act as a voice and a means of force. A voice alone, is just that. Freedom of speech is a facade when there is no weight or authority behind it. Having that right alone forces you to rely on circumstance, and requires you to become dependent on those factors. A weapon doesn't.IG-Calibre wrote:
what use is a government if it mass exterminates its civilians, because they don't have guns? who is left to govern? it's the armys job to have the weapons not the civilians
Last edited by Dec45 (2006-11-11 16:11:54)
Take Cuba for example. They removed all the guns, then Castro removed the right to ... well basically all rights. Take a look at the large dictatorships in history, they're not armed societies and the people in power have free reign to do whatever they want to those people.
A conformist society is a mass of chess pieces. Unfortunately, without a weapon... There is no option but conform.Not wrote:
Take Cuba for example. They removed all the guns, then Castro removed the right to ... well basically all rights. Take a look at the large dictatorships in history, they're not armed societies and the people in power have free reign to do whatever they want to those people.
Not really sure what your saying here tbh. The OP's question is simple which would you rather choose freedom of speech or the right to bare arms. Now everything else is tainted by your own perception of what government/democracy is or isn't. I was born and raised through a War for most of my life - so all i've ever seen weapons do is kill people, and, in the end the situation had to resolved through Speech/talking. The guns/bombs accomplished fuck all from what I can see that couldn't be accomplished through dialogue. I've been in many US cities - well about 10 and I didn't feel any less/more afraid because I wasn't carrying a gun.Dec45 wrote:
Where is the universal logic, that it is wise to entrust your protection solely to the government? No one mentioned mass extermination, and it isn't the only requisite to justify the right to bear arms. The truth of the matter in America, like many countries, is that the government is not run by the common people. We have a million flavors of ice cream, yet only two political parties who are in reality much more similar then different, and seem to make the same mistakes time and time again. If said government wasn't regulated by a small percentile of the high-end within the extreme financial gap, then such an argument would be much more valid in my opinion. Unfortunately, the government is hardly ever looking out for our best interest, or even asking us how we feel. A gun can act as a voice and a means of force. A voice alone, is just that. Freedom of speech is a facade when there is no weight or authority behind it. Having that right alone forces you to rely on circumstance, and requires you to become dependent on those factors. A weapon doesn't.IG-Calibre wrote:
what use is a government if it mass exterminates its civilians, because they don't have guns? who is left to govern? it's the armys job to have the weapons not the civilians
Stupid poll. WTF do you need the right to bear arms for?
Hmm toughie, the right to speak my mind freely without fear or the right to have my head blown off for saying the wrong thing, oh the choices...
Neither, I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
Malloy must go
The right to bear arms secures ever other right in the constitution, including the freedom of speech. Speech means nothing if you have no means to defend it.