Exactly... It's just that simple.Elamdri wrote:
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.
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 | ||||||
IG-Calibre wrote:
Freedom of speech all the way - the pen is mightier than the sword
Explain how this is possible. The freedom of speech secures your right to criticize the government and to vote and to say you asshole are wrong, go away. How can a gun give you that ability? A military coup? That's not democracy anymore. Then you will have no rights at all.Dec45 wrote:
Exactly... It's just that simple.Elamdri wrote:
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.
The question posed here, is not detailed enough to presume the government is going to forever entitle you to your right of speech. The point is defense of your rights. If you have force, you can make your own rights, just as the government can use force to strip it away. The reality of the world, is that even in countries where free speech is encouraged and defended, there is a barrier to its heights. Freedom of speech in the most extreme sense, does not exist. There are people being locked up for years without due process over shit they've only said and expressed. I'm basing my decision on the lessons of history, not on the hopes of some utopia that doesn't exist.sergeriver wrote:
Explain how this is possible. The freedom of speech secures your right to criticize the government and to vote and to say you asshole are wrong, go away. How can a gun give you that ability? A military coup? That's not democracy anymore. Then you will have no rights at all.Dec45 wrote:
Exactly... It's just that simple.Elamdri wrote:
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.
Without arms in the hands government, none could ever oppress its people.
Without arms in the hands of people, any government can oppress its people.
With arms in the hands of both, they negate any power over one another.
Without arms in the hands of people, any government can oppress its people.
With arms in the hands of both, they negate any power over one another.
that's just anarchyDec45 wrote:
Without arms in the hands government, none could ever oppress its people.
Without arms in the hands of people, any government can oppress its people.
With arms in the hands of both, they negate any power over one another.
Your views are a bit extremist, no offense. Democracy doesn't work based on the amount of arms government or people handle. If you vote right your government probably won't try to take out your rights. If you vote wrong and your government tries to oppress you, you may have arms, but you are screwed anyway. Which side is stronger, government or people? In a society based on freedom of speech, people. In a society based on arms, government.Dec45 wrote:
Without arms in the hands government, none could ever oppress its people.
Without arms in the hands of people, any government can oppress its people.
With arms in the hands of both, they negate any power over one another.
I think it unwise, especially in America, to under estimate, the power of an armed citizenship. I promise you, anyone that conducts an armed invasion of the US will need to contend with its citizens as much as its military.sergeriver wrote:
Your views are a bit extremist, no offense. Democracy doesn't work based on the amount of arms government or people handle. If you vote right your government probably won't try to take out your rights. If you vote wrong and your government tries to oppress you, you may have arms, but you are screwed anyway. Which side is stronger, government or people? In a society based on freedom of speech, people. In a society based on arms, government.Dec45 wrote:
Without arms in the hands government, none could ever oppress its people.
Without arms in the hands of people, any government can oppress its people.
With arms in the hands of both, they negate any power over one another.
All of this complaining about gun ownership, how does my owning guns affect you at all? Do you honestly truely believe that if you take the guns away from its citizens, criminals will not have them? They outlaw drugs and I don't see any shortage of crackheads in our cities. Criminals will still have guns. The difference is, if you disarm the citizens, the criminals won't have to think twice about their commiting their crimes in our homes.
I think you didn't get the topic. It says if you could have only one which one would you choose? I want to see which of these rights is the most important for people. I vote for Freedom of Speech, because for me it's more important, but you are free to choose the Right to Bear Arms. I don't have to agree though. I think a fine example it's the Police in England, they don't carry guns and the crime rate is lower than in America.lowing wrote:
I think it unwise, especially in America, to under estimate, the power of an armed citizenship. I promise you, anyone that conducts an armed invasion of the US will need to contend with its citizens as much as its military.sergeriver wrote:
Your views are a bit extremist, no offense. Democracy doesn't work based on the amount of arms government or people handle. If you vote right your government probably won't try to take out your rights. If you vote wrong and your government tries to oppress you, you may have arms, but you are screwed anyway. Which side is stronger, government or people? In a society based on freedom of speech, people. In a society based on arms, government.Dec45 wrote:
Without arms in the hands government, none could ever oppress its people.
Without arms in the hands of people, any government can oppress its people.
With arms in the hands of both, they negate any power over one another.
All of this complaining about gun ownership, how does my owning guns affect you at all? Do you honestly truely believe that if you take the guns away from its citizens, criminals will not have them? They outlaw drugs and I don't see any shortage of crackheads in our cities. Criminals will still have guns. The difference is, if you disarm the citizens, the criminals won't have to think twice about their commiting their crimes in our homes.
So America is in anarchy?IG-Calibre wrote:
that's just anarchyDec45 wrote:
Without arms in the hands government, none could ever oppress its people.
Without arms in the hands of people, any government can oppress its people.
With arms in the hands of both, they negate any power over one another.
Are you happy with the crime rates in US?Dec45 wrote:
So America is in anarchy?IG-Calibre wrote:
that's just anarchyDec45 wrote:
Without arms in the hands government, none could ever oppress its people.
Without arms in the hands of people, any government can oppress its people.
With arms in the hands of both, they negate any power over one another.
The only party worthy of mention outside of corruption, are independent parties that will never get elected. With that in mind, it just doesn't seem productive to submit the people's only form of balance to a government that for the most part has been making decisions based on corporate finance and capitalization, for the past 60 years. I understand many people find my acknowledgment of this as extreme, but I'm not condoning a violent society that glorifies firearms without doing the same for life. I'm simply trying to condone a path that will assure a greater amount of stability for the future. There are things the government has done and is doing, that instills a certain degree of fear within me. I'm not a fan of the big brother ideology, so I'm suggesting the option that restricts the fatal flaws of it.sergeriver wrote:
Your views are a bit extremist, no offense. Democracy doesn't work based on the amount of arms government or people handle. If you vote right your government probably won't try to take out your rights. If you vote wrong and your government tries to oppress you, you may have arms, but you are screwed anyway. Which side is stronger, government or people? In a society based on freedom of speech, people. In a society based on arms, government.Dec45 wrote:
Without arms in the hands government, none could ever oppress its people.
Without arms in the hands of people, any government can oppress its people.
With arms in the hands of both, they negate any power over one another.
I could tell you my opinion on the crime rates in the U.S, but whatever they may be, it wouldn't work to prove that America is in anarchy. It's just simply not. Yet, we have arms in the hands of both the people and the government, which you just said was anarchy.sergeriver wrote:
Are you happy with the crime rates in US?Dec45 wrote:
So America is in anarchy?IG-Calibre wrote:
that's just anarchy
But to answer the question, no... I'm not happy with the crime rates in the U.S. But there are far more pressing factors that cause that then firearms. The U.K has more violent crime then the U.S and they're using knives.
lolCameronPoe wrote:
How come 'The Right to Arm Bears' isn't an option?
Speech. And BTW why have a gun when you can't shoot someone with it
I don't think you understand the thread tbh..Dec45 wrote:
So America is in anarchy?IG-Calibre wrote:
that's just anarchyDec45 wrote:
Without arms in the hands government, none could ever oppress its people.
Without arms in the hands of people, any government can oppress its people.
With arms in the hands of both, they negate any power over one another.
Which has less to do with guns and more to do with our culture, a poor conclusion serg.sergeriver wrote:
Are you happy with the crime rates in US?Dec45 wrote:
So America is in anarchy?IG-Calibre wrote:
that's just anarchy
No mate, I never said that America was in anarchy. That was another guy. I asked you if you were happy with the crime rates?Dec45 wrote:
I could tell you my opinion on the crime rates in the U.S, but whatever they may be, it wouldn't work to prove that America is in anarchy. It's just simply not. Yet, we have arms in the hands of both the people and the government, which you just said was anarchy.sergeriver wrote:
Are you happy with the crime rates in US?Dec45 wrote:
So America is in anarchy?
But to answer the question, no... I'm not happy with the crime rates in the U.S. But there are far more pressing factors that cause that then firearms. The U.K has more violent crime then the U.S and they're using knives.
My point is weapons are not helping to lower the crime rates as someone suggested.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Which has less to do with guns and more to do with our culture, a poor conclusion serg.sergeriver wrote:
Are you happy with the crime rates in US?Dec45 wrote:
So America is in anarchy?
Oh, I apologize man... I missed that altogether. I thought you were him.sergeriver wrote:
No mate, I never said that America was in anarchy. That was another guy. I asked you if you were happy with the crime rates?Dec45 wrote:
I could tell you my opinion on the crime rates in the U.S, but whatever they may be, it wouldn't work to prove that America is in anarchy. It's just simply not. Yet, we have arms in the hands of both the people and the government, which you just said was anarchy.sergeriver wrote:
Are you happy with the crime rates in US?
But to answer the question, no... I'm not happy with the crime rates in the U.S. But there are far more pressing factors that cause that then firearms. The U.K has more violent crime then the U.S and they're using knives.
exactly, shut the fuck up and listen to what samuel colt has to say on the matterCameronPoe 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...
though maybe you should have logged in as cyrus to say that
the need to defend your rights is a Lockian notion.
I know the choice, I was specifically addressing the post abovesergeriver wrote:
I think you didn't get the topic. It says if you could have only one which one would you choose? I want to see which of these rights is the most important for people. I vote for Freedom of Speech, because for me it's more important, but you are free to choose the Right to Bear Arms. I don't have to agree though. I think a fine example it's the Police in England, they don't carry guns and the crime rate is lower than in America.lowing wrote:
I think it unwise, especially in America, to under estimate, the power of an armed citizenship. I promise you, anyone that conducts an armed invasion of the US will need to contend with its citizens as much as its military.sergeriver wrote:
Your views are a bit extremist, no offense. Democracy doesn't work based on the amount of arms government or people handle. If you vote right your government probably won't try to take out your rights. If you vote wrong and your government tries to oppress you, you may have arms, but you are screwed anyway. Which side is stronger, government or people? In a society based on freedom of speech, people. In a society based on arms, government.
All of this complaining about gun ownership, how does my owning guns affect you at all? Do you honestly truely believe that if you take the guns away from its citizens, criminals will not have them? They outlaw drugs and I don't see any shortage of crackheads in our cities. Criminals will still have guns. The difference is, if you disarm the citizens, the criminals won't have to think twice about their commiting their crimes in our homes.
Well do enlighten me on what I'm missing... I feel I'm interpreting the question fine. I'm giving reason why the right to bear arms is more valuable then speech, keeping in mind that we don't live in some utopia where we won't ever have to worry about defending our rights.IG-Calibre wrote:
I don't think you understand the thread tbh..Dec45 wrote:
So America is in anarchy?IG-Calibre wrote:
that's just anarchy
K in this scenario - you can't choose the right to bare arms, and then say we can get free speech because we are armed. By choosing the Guns option you kiss free speech good bye, it is now no longer part of the equation, no longer an option no matter how armed to the teeth you are. Do you understand now? it's a hypothetical situation not a discussion about America or a utopia or whatever. It's a simple choice to be made, guns or free speech - which do you value more? it's as simple as that for the sake of poll.
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-11-12 15:28:43)