Are you willing?

[GoldenRivet]

Simple, black and white, unloaded yes or no question as presented by public school to children
(http://news.yahoo.com/dad-furious-finding-crayon-written-paper-florida-4th-124614291.html)
American's: Are you willing to give up some of your constitutional rights in order to feel more secure?

[Stealhead]

Crap I hit yes and meant no.Recount!!!!:D It should as of right now be 100% no.

If only Americans vote it is going be majority no anyway hell if everyone votes it will still be mainly no I'd wager.

I would not willingly give up any right to feel "safer" everyone was "safe" in the book "1984".

[Father Goose]

Don't worry Stealhead. The same thing happened to a lot of folks in the last presidential election.

Back on topic:
'Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.' Benjamin Franklin, 'Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor,' November 11, 1755."

[Stealhead]

That is the same thing the losing side says after every election by my count that has happened 55 times just counting primary presidential elections.

I volunteered during the 2008 election trust me they get counted correctly and people get varied properly I sat there a did it.

[Red October1984]

NO!

None of my rights will be given up because they are RIGHTS!

Maybe we've forgotten the definition of that word....

[Father Goose]

That is the same thing the losing side says after every election by my count that has happened 55 times just counting primary presidential elections.

I volunteered during the 2008 election trust me they get counted correctly and people get varied properly I sat there a did it.

Oh, I'm sorry, I just noticed you're from Florida. That explains it all. :har:

[Red October1984]

Oh, I'm sorry, I just noticed you're from Florida. That explains it all. :har:

Stealhead, we're going to have to recount your posts... :ping:

[CCIP]

I have little respect for people who stand on a soapbox and loudly proclaim "Liberty or death!", having never had to make that choice and never facing anything remotely approximating that choice. You are no more qualified to judge people making that choice than a crayon-drawing 4-year-old. It's easy to look down on people who've made that choice - of course, they're cowards who deserve nothing! Let them be dead in the pyre of history, those traitors to great human ideals! It's a black-and-white world after all.

I was born in the USSR. I think that tells you something about where my view comes from. Live in a place where your safety is actually legitimately threatened, or worse, when the real choice is the safety of your family, and then come back and be 100% confident in your answer. But I seriously don't buy this stuff for even a second. It's a historical fact that when they come after you and your loved ones, no forum poll will change the fact that the overwhelming majority will make the choice to save what's dear to them. And no amount of self-righteousness and ego-pumping will make you right and them wrong. You have no right to look down on people who love life and love their family, and would give up anything and everything to preserve them.

History is a complicated thing and people should strive for ideals, but not through black/white proclamations that divide people into humans and less-than-humans.

[magic452]

With all do respect, and I do mean that, nobody said anything about looking down on anybody. A simple poll nothing more and isn't that what Freedom, Liberty and Democratic are all about.

Americans have been standing up for Liberty for over 200 hundred years and many thousands have died because of it. We have paid our blood and treasure many times already and will do so again if necessary.

Don't forget that it was an American that said " Give me Liberty or give me death" and he wasn't standing on a soapbox but rather a gallows at the time.

People start giving up their "Liberty" and it's possible we may be put into the position you described and experienced.

What got your people into that position in the first place was a government that got too powerful. There are many Americans that will not let that happen here. Don't underestimate us.

I lived the entire Cold War, albeit from the other side of the coin but I nor anybody that I knew ever looked down on the people of Russia. Some times you got to do what you got to do to survive. What we don't want to see here is us being put into that position in the first place and one way that can happen is to start giving up your rights a little at a time.

Look at the Second Amendment gun thread and also put it together with the one on the IRS looking at your E Mails without warrants, the Fourth Amendment. A little bit at a time.

If the experience of the Russian people says one thing to the people of the US it is don't let that happen here. A little bit at a time.

I'll come down from my soapbox now.

Magic

[Hottentot]

Americans have been standing up for Liberty for over 200 hundred years and many thousands have died because of it. We have paid our blood and treasure many times already and will do so again if necessary.

That's all well and good, but mostly theory as long as you (generic, not you personally) don't have to make the choice between liberty and death yourself. And that's what I think CCIP was pointing out. Your ancestors doing something does not give any validity to you in such case. Much like my ancestors fighting in Winter war don't give me any credit to use patriotic rhetoric about what I would or wouldn't do if another war with Russia broke out.

I have no doubt that should the situation arise, many people would still do as they said they would when it was only theoretical. But CCIP's point is still very valid: it's easier to say than do when you have something as dear as your family or your own life at stake.

[magic452]

You totally missed the point of my post. A little bit at a time.
You don't get there if you don't let them take your rights away in the first place.

I'm not talking about just my ancestors but my contemporaries and those that are doing so today. What our ancestors did is very relevant to what we as Americans would do today, it's our heritage just as The Winters War is yours, it would influence what you would do.

What CCIP posted is very valid for him and the Russian people at the time. The situation was already out of control for many years and there was little they could do about it. Dieing for a slogan would not be the best way to protect your family, their rights and liberty were lost a long time ago. What I'm saying is that there are those of us that will fight to protect out liberty not necessarily with guns but with whatever action we can, even if it starts with posting in some forum thread. If it came to guns there are many that would go that way if necessary to prevent what happened in Russia from happening here. You stand on the shoulders of those that came before you and for myself personally I would do what ever I could to protect my family from going through anything like what happened in Russia or many other places in the world. I've gotten my butt handed to me on more than one occasion for standing up for what I thought was right so it wouldn't be the first time.

Those who ignore history are doom to repeat it.

Nearly a hundred years ago the Russian people did stand up for their rights and liberty regrettably it didn't turn out so good, the replacement government was worse than the one they had.

While it's true that Americans haven't fought our government for some 150 years but we have done so twice in the past. The past can and often does repeat itself.

Magic

[mapuc]

Be Careful, be very careful, this is nothing more that a manipulative question.

Markus

[Skybird]

Suggestive phrasing. Answering to poll denied.

It is polls with simpliified formulas like this that do not mean to assess opinions at all, but that try to manipulate them.

In school contexts, may it be "polls", may it be text of school books, it is called brainwashing.

[Oberon]

I didn't answer since I'm not American, but I think the Ben Franklin quote says it best.

However, if the question is put to Americans, it will not be done in that way, it will be done in ways like the PATRIOT act, as a knee-jerk response to a major incident, and the common person will be told by both government and media alike that it is a good thing.

What was that Goering quote:

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

[Nippelspanner]

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.Never thought I would agree about the color of **** with that guy, but hell did he hit the nails head.
Leaving aside who he was and concentrating on what was said... This little strategy seems to work just fine.

[Tribesman]

Don't forget that it was an American that said " Give me Liberty or give me death" and he wasn't standing on a soapbox but rather a gallows at the time.

Errrrr .....it was an american standing on a soapbox quoting an englishmen who had attributed a phrase to a roman.

Please get your national myths straight and drop the drama.



Anyway, does anyone find the initial story in this topic somewhat fishy?
The poll itself is actually meaningless since Americans seem unable to decide what rights they really have or what the constitution means by its words

[Feuer Frei!]

does anyone find the initial story in this topic somewhat fishy?


publicity stunt.
note found months later in backpack(assuming school bag).
1 other concern by another parent.
a loss for words.
biased opinions.
note looks like it was written by an adult, made to look like a child's.
teacher says she had nothing to do with it.
and more...

[Armistead]

I'm shocked anyone would give up any constitutional right to FEEL safer.
My rights are to make me safer, not to make you feel safer. Plus, it doesn't and hasn't ever worked where tried.

I can see the future, we carry our ID papers, can be stopped on demand without cause, no firearms....geesh, what has history taught us.

[Skybird]

I'm shocked anyone would give up any constitutional right to FEEL safer.
My rights are to make me safer, not to make you feel safer. Plus, it doesn't and hasn't ever worked where tried.

I can see the future, we carry our ID papers, can be stopped on demand without cause, no firearms....geesh, what has history taught us.
You are a candidate to read Hoppe, believe me.

BTW, rights never make somebody safer, felt or in real. Only the ability to enforce said rights, or to defend yourself.

The state is the monopolist who can make laws (that regulate taxes and define the service he provides), and who can rob said taxes. Like any monopolist, this one also tries to raise the prices while delivering less service in return.

Hoppe would argue that instead of a government it is better to have a network of insurance companies providing you with security services and legal mediation for a fee. Said insurer'S best own interest would be to be able to provide that (police and legal mediation) service for sure, else they lose customers who lose their trust, and to provide measures and means that make environments safer (to reduce damages they have to compensate for), also they would want to cooperate with other insurers to collectively reduce conflicts and costs (from compensations), and to reduce fees they must demand from their customers (price competition). You would get - in this idealised situation - better protection with less centralised power and a lower impact on your private finances - becasue it is in the very own best interest of the insurers as well (whereas one could argue it is in govenrment'S interst to have a socially unstable, critical and unsafe situation so to gain their self-legitimation for their own existence from hinting at that and say: that is what you need us for to protect you from!). A lawmaking (self-legalising) state/government (power monopolist) taking your taxes (blackmailing for protection money), is not needed in that.

Insurers just must be prevented from being able to form monopoles or cartels themselves. Nevertheless they must be powerful enough - both in policing and military force and financial power - to provide their services where being challenged - even against military attacks from other parts of the world. If they are allowed to form cartels and monopoles, they just turn into a new centralized government like the ones they have replaced.

[Sailor Steve]

Errrrr .....it was an american standing on a soapbox quoting an englishmen who had attributed a phrase to a roman.
And he wasn't standing on a gallows at the time, but in a church at a meeting of the Virginia House of Burgesses. In fact his only involvement in the Revolution was to make speeches; he never served in a military role.

To make matters worse, it's questionable whether he ever said it at all. The only record comes from a biography written forty-two years after the fact, with no intervening documentation.

And by-the-by...
With all do respect
It's "due" respect, meaning something that is owed. "Do" means to perform an act.

[magic452]

It was 3 o'clock in the morning, with all due respect I plead I just missed that one. One of many.

Magic

[Sailor Steve]

:rotfl2: Excellent! :rock:

Now, about Patrick Henry... :O:

[Tribesman]

And he wasn't standing on a gallows at the time
I know Steve, which is why I said he was standing on a soapbox, a political soapbox.


I'm shocked anyone would give up any constitutional right to FEEL safer.

Why?
Surely it all depends on what the individual thinks are their rights in the first place and what they think they are giving up
Simplest example would be on the 2nd as that is a recurrent current theme.
1st person says that uninfringement means no regulation at all.
2nd person says I don't want my neighbour to have nukes
3rd person says I want backround checks to prevent criminals walking into a store and buying a gun.
4th person says why would anyone need a AK when my glock suits me fine

Add in dozens of more examples and to each person you can have a different theme.
All make sense apart from #1 who himself will think that none of the others make sense.
Works exactly the same way if you do it with free speech.

It is why the question put forward is actually meaningless.

[yubba]

So, if you live, 30 or 40 minutes from town, who do you plan on saving your butt when someone is breaking in your house with ill intent.??????? I bet that nuke would start to look pretty good....

[GoldenRivet]

So, if you live, 30 or 40 minutes from town, who do you plan on saving your butt when someone is breaking in your house with ill intent.?

Put his brains on the ground in the quickest fashion possible.

[Platapus]

Don't forget that it was an American that said " Give me Liberty or give me death" and he wasn't standing on a soapbox but rather a gallows at the time.



And he wasn't standing on a gallows at the time, but in a church at a meeting of the Virginia House of Burgesses. In fact his only involvement in the Revolution was to make speeches; he never served in a military role.

To make matters worse, it's questionable whether he ever said it at all. The only record comes from a biography written forty-two years after the fact, with no intervening documentation.


Forget it, he's rolling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI

[Platapus]

This topic does give a chance to, yet again, post one of my favourite quotes

These are dangerous times. When we are afraid, we want to be protected

Since we can not protect ourselves against such horrors as mass murder by bombers, we are tempted to run to the government.

A government that is always willing to trade the promise of security in exchange for our freedom, which left as always the question:

How much freedom are we willing to relinquish for such a bald promise? -- Gerry Spence

The issue is that often we are being asked to accept, with no uncertainty, an infringement of a right and being offered only the hope that this certain infringement may, somehow, make things a little bit better. That just does not sound right. :nope:

Am I ever willing to give up a right? Sure, I can imagine a circumstance where I might consider it. However, there better be a demonstrated guaranteed result that will compensate the citizen.

Since that won't ever happen, the answer would be no then.

[Stealhead]

Oh, I'm sorry, I just noticed you're from Florida. That explains it all. :har:


It explains where I live and nothing more.And back in 2000 it was only a few counties that had those hole punch ballot deals.In most counties they use a ballot where you mark using a scan tron machine.This happens the moment they are done marking so there is no way to alter the vote unless the person made a mistake themselves.At the end of the day the machines are opened and the ballots are counted.I was not in the country for the 2000 vote at the time I was in the military and I only volunteered the one time in 2008 and have not done it since it was a little too boring for me to have sit in one place for hours on end.

[Ducimus]

I think everyone here knows what my answer would be.

In a word. Never.

But I will elaborate in my own words, and not just toss out quotes from my nations founding fathers.

I have seen and experienced enough of this world to know that not everything is worth fighting for, and lofty words like "freedom" and "liberty" can seem like hallow, empty words. But there is a single word, that I would fight and die for with all my heart and soul.

Home.


The word home is many things. It's your house, your car, all your stuff. It's where you lay you head down at night, its your sanctuary, it's where your kids are, where your wife is, it is your friends, it your family, it's your neighbors. It is every thing you know and love. But it's that and more. It's about having choices, it's about being able to come and go as you please, it's about being the decider of your own actions, it's about making your own choices, its being able to plot the course of your own future, it's about the pursuit of happiness.

Now, everyone in the world comes from somewhere, everyone has their roots. One cannot take flight forever, you eventually have to land somewhere. Somewhere, you'll eventually have to make a stand. Home isn't always perfect, but it's still home, and home is worth fighting for more then anything else in the world.

So no, i would never surrender my constitutional rights in order to feel safer. The safety of myself, my loved ones, my home, is my responsibility. I love it too much to entrust that to someone else.

[Armistead]

You are a candidate to read Hoppe, believe me.

BTW, rights never make somebody safer, felt or in real. Only the ability to enforce said rights, or to defend yourself.

The state is the monopolist who can make laws (that regulate taxes and define the service he provides), and who can rob said taxes. Like any monopolist, this one also tries to raise the prices while delivering less service in return.

Hoppe would argue that instead of a government it is better to have a network of insurance companies providing you with security services and legal mediation for a fee. Said insurer'S best own interest would be to be able to provide that (police and legal mediation) service for sure, else they lose customers who lose their trust, and to provide measures and means that make environments safer (to reduce damages they have to compensate for), also they would want to cooperate with other insurers to collectively reduce conflicts and costs (from compensations), and to reduce fees they must demand from their customers (price competition). You would get - in this idealised situation - better protection with less centralised power and a lower impact on your private finances - becasue it is in the very own best interest of the insurers as well (whereas one could argue it is in govenrment'S interst to have a socially unstable, critical and unsafe situation so to gain their self-legitimation for their own existence from hinting at that and say: that is what you need us for to protect you from!). A lawmaking (self-legalising) state/government (power monopolist) taking your taxes (blackmailing for protection money), is not needed in that.

Insurers just must be prevented from being able to form monopoles or cartels themselves. Nevertheless they must be powerful enough - both in policing and military force and financial power - to provide their services where being challenged - even against military attacks from other parts of the world. If they are allowed to form cartels and monopoles, they just turn into a new centralized government like the ones they have replaced.

insurers just must be prevented from being able to form monopoles or cartels themselves.

IOW they would have to be govt. controlled with regulation, thus turning them into another special interest group.

No, I don't need to read Hoppe, in fact, he can kiss my ass.

[Jimbuna]

I think everyone here knows what my answer would be.

In a word. Never.

But I will elaborate in my own words, and not just toss out quotes from my nations founding fathers.

I have seen and experienced enough of this world to know that not everything is worth fighting for, and lofty words like "freedom" and "liberty" can seem like hallow, empty words. But there is a single word, that I would fight and die for with all my heart and soul.

Home.


The word home is many things. It's your house, your car, all your stuff. It's where you lay you head down at night, its your sanctuary, it's where your kids are, where your wife is, it is your friends, it your family, it's your neighbors. It is every thing you know and love. But it's that and more. It's about having choices, it's about being able to come and go as you please, it's about being the decider of your own actions, it's about making your own choices, its being able to plot the course of your own future, it's about the pursuit of happiness.

Now, everyone in the world comes from somewhere, everyone has their roots. One cannot take flight forever, you eventually have to land somewhere. Somewhere, you'll eventually have to make a stand. Home isn't always perfect, but it's still home, and home is worth fighting for more then anything else in the world.

So no, i would never surrender my constitutional rights in order to feel safer. The safety of myself, my loved ones, my home, is my responsibility. I love it too much to entrust that to someone else.

Not an American but this sounds/looks about right for me.

[swamprat69er]

You all know that I am just a big dumb Canuck, but I have to agree with Ducimus. (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=219224):salute:
I voted no before I read the first post.

[Bilge_Rat]

"Better Dead then Red", Darn, right.

Much better to live in bastions of freedom like Yemen, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Pakistan, Venezuela...

Think about the poor repressed masses in Japan, UK, Poland...

btw, what part of the constitution garantees the right to 30 round mags? Up here in the frozen north, we manage to hunt just fine with 5 round mags, its called "reloading"...:ping:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/World_map_of_civilian_gun_ownership.svg/800px-World_map_of_civilian_gun_ownership.svg.png

[Wolferz]

V for vendetta

[raymond6751]

You want the right to have your kids take classes in free-fire zones.
You want the right to bury your children.
You want the right to stay indoors at night because the streets are kill zones.
You want the right to fire at a bad guy (presumed), to miss, and to kill some innocent person.
You want the right to have your wife, kids, girlfriends, and mommy caught in a crossfire between folks who disagree.
You want a right to keep loaded guns and kids in the same house.
You want to watch your neighbors who are also armed.
You want big guns, hollow point ammo, big mags, and hospitals so full they can't take in your son or daughter when they need help.
You want criminals let loose early because the jails are overflowing.
You want the right to shoot first at anyone who looks or acts in any way that makes you feel unsafe.
:hmm2:

[Sailor Steve]

btw, what part of the constitution garantees the right to 30 round mags?
I don't know. What part mentions any part of any weapon?

So, what part of "infringe" don't you understand? It means to violate or encroach upon. Any limitation violates the meaning of "infringe".

Up here in the frozen north, we manage to hunt just fine with 5 round mags, its called "reloading"...:ping:
Good for you. I do all my shooting with a bolt-action rifle or a single-action revolver. Do you really need an M-1 Garand, even if it's a classic? Do you really need a dual-action revolver, or a semi-automatic pistol? Do you really need anything more than a single-shot muzzle-loader? Do you really need a gun at all?

You try to make a case for needing one gun or another, but you put yourself right into the trap of trying to limit what the word "infringe" means. You want to have it both ways. A basic natural right has nothing to do with what you, I, or Diane Feinstein think we need.

[Sailor Steve]

You want the right to stay indoors at night because the streets are kill zones.
I already stay indoors at night because the neighborhood is infested with thugs and gangsters. They don't need a gun to beat me to death. I certainly need one if they decide to do so.

You want the right to fire at a bad guy (presumed), to miss, and to kill some innocent person.
Yet you support the right of a cop to do the same thing.

You want the right to have your wife, kids, girlfriends, and mommy caught in a crossfire between folks who disagree.
Hasn't happened to any of my kids, or my friends' kids.

You want a right to keep loaded guns and kids in the same house.
And yet I know several people who keep the guns out of reach of the little ones and teach the older ones what they are and why they're there.

You want to watch your neighbors who are also armed.
I respect my neighbors and know who they are. If they're armed it doesn't bother me at all.

You want big guns, hollow point ammo, big mags, and hospitals so full they can't take in your son or daughter when they need help.
None of those make things any better or any worse than having guns at all. Why don't you admit your real agenda. Also, the hospitals are full to overflowing with auto accident victims, but I don't hear you saying a word. Emotionalism at its finest.

You want criminals let loose early because the jails are overflowing.
No, I don't want that. On the other hand, legalize most drugs and that problem disappears overnight.

You want the right to shoot first at anyone who looks or acts in any way that makes you feel unsafe.
:hmm2:
Not even close. You really are making this up as you go along.

I never thought I'd say this, but that little rant makes Yubba look like a scholar.

[Tchocky]

V for vendetta

RAISing Arizona

[JU_88]

Not American, but if I was I'd go with 'no', Imo trading liberty for security is morally wrong, you dont punish the vast majority for the crimes of a small minority And I am not aware of any examples that provides evidence of it ever actually being successful.

[Armistead]

And he wasn't standing on a gallows at the time, but in a church at a meeting of the Virginia House of Burgesses. In fact his only involvement in the Revolution was to make speeches; he never served in a military role.

To make matters worse, it's questionable whether he ever said it at all. The only record comes from a biography written forty-two years after the fact, with no intervening documentation.

And by-the-by...

It's "due" respect, meaning something that is owed. "Do" means to perform an act.

Good point. From all research done on the issue, seems he never said it.

[Armistead]

You want the right to have your kids take classes in free-fire zones.
You want the right to bury your children.
You want the right to stay indoors at night because the streets are kill zones.
You want the right to fire at a bad guy (presumed), to miss, and to kill some innocent person.
You want the right to have your wife, kids, girlfriends, and mommy caught in a crossfire between folks who disagree.
You want a right to keep loaded guns and kids in the same house.
You want to watch your neighbors who are also armed.
You want big guns, hollow point ammo, big mags, and hospitals so full they can't take in your son or daughter when they need help.
You want criminals let loose early because the jails are overflowing.
You want the right to shoot first at anyone who looks or acts in any way that makes you feel unsafe.
:hmm2:

Regarding all that, yes we want those rights, because we've learned in America criminals don't abide by any law.

I have several guns in my house with kids, not loaded, cept one. My son is 15, very good with guns, he's allowed to take his and go hunting/target shooting when he pleases. My wife is a great marksman, woman...lol. We're not worried about shooting each other in a criminal comes in, we'll have him in triangulated fire. However, I'd rather be shot by a family member trying to stop a criminal, than to stand there with my hands in my pockets why they rape or kill my family.

Speaking of prisons, I saw a GOP congressman that made me sick. With budget cuts he was talking about what we needed to do to cut cost in the prison system because too many offenders were being released. He wanted to get rid of soft drinks, any junk food, cable, books, etc. Like Steve said, legalize pot and you'll have plenty room for the real crooks.
Course, he was against doing that.

[MH]

Is about trading freedom to "feel" safer or actually be safer.
Those are two very different things practised in reality.

You can carry gun to actually feel safer but not really be or police may patrolling
your neigberhood just for the same reason.

[Sailor Steve]

And the opposite is true. You can "feel" safer by banning all guns, until some big young punk decides he wants your money, or your body. Then how safe are you?

[Sailor Steve]

However, I'd rather be shot by a family member trying to stop a criminal, than to stand there with my hands in my pockets why they rape or kill my family.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/ProtectYourDaughter_zps317f6d9b.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/ProtectYourDaughter_zps317f6d9b.jpg.html)

[nikimcbee]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/ProtectYourDaughter_zps317f6d9b.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/ProtectYourDaughter_zps317f6d9b.jpg.html)

I vote Rotweiller.

In a related note, my last boss/engineer's wife is a concealed carry holder. She always had a pistol on her.

[GoldenRivet]

Wonder how this thread migrated to guns even though guns were never mentioned in the original post...

Sure guns is a fraction of it, but so is speech, having a trial, being free from illegal search etc.

@skybird, it is NOT worded in a manipulative fashion... the question is simple

"would you give up some of your constitutional rights to feel safer?"

no motive or agenda... unless of course the school teacher asking the question had them.

certainly none here, just want to know what my comrades think at subsim.

So you either would be willing to give up on one ore more rights, or you wouldnt. There really isnt a grey area or a fuzzy line to walk where constitutional rights are concerned, one either wants specific rights or they dont... its really that simple.

[Armistead]

Well, Presidents and Governors have shown they have no problem denying our rights using martial law. In the last decades they've added so much language, they can do about what they want. Like the house to house searches they did during Katrina, taking legal firearms from legal holders.

[Jimbuna]

Wonder how this thread migrated to guns even though guns were never mentioned in the original post...



General Topics :)

[CaptainMattJ.]

No. But you dont seem keen on wanting to rid yourself of regulation of firearms, right? To simply say "anyone who wants a gun can own one no questions asked". Theres a line, although fine, between regulation and banning. The american People have spoken and it doesn't look as though your praised assault weapons are going anywhere. Even after a knee-jerk "ban on assault rifles" after a horrific incident, the bill to ban assault rifles was ultimately cut down until all it did was try to close the gun show loophole, which IMO is absolutely required. Otherwise what is the point of having background checks and licenses if you just circumvent the system by buying at gun shows.

We've already demonstrated the uproar that would happen in the event of an assault rifle ban. But the NRA is getting up in arms over the closing over the gun show loophole. And frankly that's ridiculous, the gun show loophole should absolutely be closed, or else whats the point of having all these regulations if you just go around most of it.

[Stealhead]

No. But you dont seem keen on wanting to rid yourself of regulation of firearms, right? To simply say "anyone who wants a gun can own one no questions asked". Theres a line, although fine, between regulation and banning. The american People have spoken and it doesn't look as though your praised assault weapons are going anywhere. Even after a knee-jerk "ban on assault rifles" after a horrific incident, the bill to ban assault rifles was ultimately cut down until all it did was try to close the gun show loophole, which IMO is absolutely required. Otherwise what is the point of having background checks and licenses if you just circumvent the system by buying at gun shows.

We've already demonstrated the uproar that would happen in the event of an assault rifle ban. But the NRA is getting up in arms over the closing over the gun show loophole. And frankly that's ridiculous, the gun show loophole should absolutely be closed, or else whats the point of having all these regulations if you just go around most of it.

FYI the gun show "loophole" is a falsehood in nearly every single state the state laws require that a background check be performed at gun shows only handful of states do not have this requirement and even in those local laws in many cases does require a BG check.The only loophole to waiting periods and background checks is via private sales.

The underlying problem is the violence not the guns.Until a reasonable way to solve this issue is generated nothing is going to change.People ignore by and large violent crimes that occur with weapons other than firearms.There are more homicides by stabbing in the US than any other method yet you do not hear anyone wanting to ban knifes and edged weapons do you?

This kid in Texas told the cops that he had fantasized about stabbing people and cutting their faces of so he could wear them as masks since he was a small kid.In this case even if there where no guns available it would have had no effect on the end result.It also shows that a person cam have severe mental illness and hide it for many years.


The entire problem with the background check is that it will only keep a person that is a registered criminal or a person that has been deemed mentally unfit by a judge from legally purchasing a firearm.

So in the end it really will not have any effect on either criminals or crazy people that have not been deemed unfit from acquiring a firearm.The background "expansion" should offend both pro and anti gun folks.

The reason that gun owners precive the extension as threat is because they know that it is BS and that in truth is is nothing but a baby step to further stricter controls.People that dislike firearms think that no one should own them period and of course dislike anything that does not do exactly that.

Personally I have libertarian leanings and think that by and large people should do what they want to do as long as they are not harming others.At the same time I do not think that a person that dislikes firearms should try to keep a law abiding person from owning them.My view is that rights should be allowed to all humans at birth I do not give a flying "ducK" if the nation I live in allows them or not they will not take away my rights any of them.

[AndyJWest]

There are more homicides by stabbing in the US than any other method

Source please - this seems to say otherwise:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg/800px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png

Edit - Stats for 2007-2011 http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8. In 2011 there were 8,583 homicides involving firearms, compared to 1,694 for 'knives and other cutting instruments'.

[Sailor Steve]

Wonder how this thread migrated to guns even though guns were never mentioned in the original post...
Simply because there is only one right that's been all over the news, here at least.

Would you like to talk about abortion?

[Stealhead]

Source please - this seems to say otherwise:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg/800px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png

Edit - Stats for 2007-2011 http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8. In 2011 there were 8,583 homicides involving firearms, compared to 1,694 for 'knives and other cutting instruments'.

That is correct I admit but you should also note that you are most likely to be killed by an acquaintance rather than a stranger.If you add all known types listed they equal 5790 excluding the number for acquaintance (2,700) if you added the two 8490 people where killed by someone that they knew compared to 1,481 persons murdered by a complete stranger in 2011.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10

In this light I propose that having friends,family members,and any other form of acquaintance is hazardous to public safety and having such relationships should be illegal.

Why not look at the entire complied statistic rather than part of it.And if you remove or make one weapon harder to acquire the only stat that will change is the weapon used.Do you think that people will stop killing simply because one tool goes away?

And why not compile a stat that showed the total number of firearms in the US and then how many people get murdered by a firearm and also separate homicides from suicide which the FBI does not do?To me suicides are separate because that person would have killed themselves regardless. If they did the ratio of firearms legally used compared to those used to murder would be very very low.

[Stealhead]

Simply because there is only one right that's been all over the news, here at least.

Would you like to talk about abortion?


How about gay marriage? Should two lesbians that are married and had in vitro fertilization be allowed to have an abortion?Double whammy that one.:O:

Personally I think that they should be allowed both to be married and to have an abortion.Of course if two people paid the costs to have in vitro they would only choose
abortion under an extreme circumstance.

[AndyJWest]

Stealhead, all I was doing was pointing out that you had your statistics dead wrong. I'm not interested in facile debates about the merits of banning friends and family. They aren't designed to kill people, guns are. Anyway, I'm a Brit, and this is a US issue, so carry on making ridiculous analogies. I'll carry on feeling glad I don't live in the perpetual fear that some US forum members seem to, or at least claim to...

[Sailor Steve]

How about gay marriage? Should two lesbians that are married and had in vitro fertilization be allowed to have an abortion?Double whammy that one.:O:

Personally I think that they should be allowed both to be married and to have an abortion.Of course if two people paid the costs to have in vitro they would only choose
abortion under an extreme circumstance.
It's not whether you think it should be allowed. This discussion is about rights. To bring that into this discussion we would have to talk about who has what actual rights in both cases, and whether those rights would be given up in exchange for something else, expressly something involving safety.

I know you were being facetious. Considering the actual topic wasn't even about rights, but giving up Liberty in exchange for Safety, it probably was aimed mainly at the gun question, and we should probably stay there. :sunny:

[razark]

Hasn't American society already decided that it is good to take away certain rights so that others can feel safer? Otherwise, once a felon is released from prison (after serving their full sentence), they should immediately have all rights restored, including that right to keep and bear arms.

Or is it a case of "My liberty should not be given up for safety, but I'm fine if your rights are given up for my safety."?

[Sailor Steve]

Hasn't American society already decided that it is good to take away certain rights so that others can feel safer? Otherwise, once a felon is released from prison (after serving their full sentence), they should immediately have all rights restored, including that right to keep and bear arms.
There are a few of us who believe that to be the proper course.

Or is it a case of "My liberty should not be given up for safety, but I'm fine if your rights are given up for my safety."?
That's an excellent point.

[Platapus]

Would you like to talk about abortion?

How about gay marriage?


Should two homosexuals be allowed to carry weapons on their way to a rally that denounces religion if they intend to continue on and get an abortion?

(I think I hit every button)

Oh, While each are wearing either an Obama or a Romney t-shirt.

(missed one)

[Sailor Steve]

Should two homosexuals be allowed to carry weapons on their way to a rally that denounces religion if they intend to continue on and get an abortion?

(I think I hit every button)

Oh, While each are wearing either an Obama or a Romney t-shirt.

(missed one)
No. Gay people should not be allowed to wear Romney T-shirts. The Constitution says nothing about any of those. Also it doesn't specifically say they can own weapons. It also doesn't meantion Creation or Evolution, so those are not allowed either.

[CaptainMattJ.]

In any case, why do you still compare a knife, or cars, or anything of the sort, to a firearm?

They are dissimiliar in nature. A firearm is DESIGNED to kill, or injure, other humans or animals. That is its sole purpose. A knife, a baseball bat, anything of the sort are completely improvised weapons. The nature of knives and blunt objects is a whole nother ballpark and cannot be used in such a way as to argue "well why arent people getting riled up about banning knives". Because the comparison cannot be made. You dont need to make illogical arguments to get a point across. It was the belief of those people that while its impossible to stop psychos from doing these things that they could try to deter them by banning "assault weapons" (for which they had little idea of what they were actually doing). It was a stupid argument but so is the "why not (insert improvised weapon of choice)" rebuttal. Just say it. Banning assault weapons wont stop people from doing these things. And in the case of the loophole, closing it wont take away your right either.

Also, don't present loaded questions in your poll. Its obvious there's only one acceptable answer because it s a question designed for one answer and to make a poll is just irritating.

[Sailor Steve]

A firearm is DESIGNED to kill, or injure, other humans or animals. That is its sole purpose.
Very true. Any other answer is obfuscation. This is why the Second Amendment exists, and why we still need it today.