NRA Blames Video Games For Violence

[zero1945]

I am far more terrified of people who are willing to give up freedom and rights for an imaginary sense of security.

I'll deal with the armed psychopath any day over some of the people in this thread.

Remember, this is the United States of America. That used to mean something.

 

[ravx25]

However, if I was a crook, I'd take that map as those that are armed and NOT to break in there. Maybe it will backfire and the crooks see the other homes as easy targets.

That was the other half of the equation on that. Not only do they call out the people with guns, like sex offenders get called out, but it shows who does not have guns (registered) aka easy target

 

[Stiletto]

That was the other half of the equation on that. Not only do they call out the people with guns, like sex offenders get called out, but it shows who does not have guns (registered) aka easy target

It specifically showed the locations of people who owned registered handguns, not long guns.

 

[c3141hf]

A legally purchased firearm was used in the Newtown killings. It is not about my comfort level. It is about risk. There is not enough imminent risk in this nation to justify firearms and accept the fatalities they cause each year.

That is the basis for most laws we have. Do we accept the freedom of an activity when compared to the risk.

Another failed consequentialist argument. You are once again trying to justify an inherently immoral act by arguing based solely on the perceived beneficial consequences of that action.

Such an argument is easily extended.

Thus, I propose the following extension of your argument :

1.You are potentially a mass murderer.
2.I have no way of knowing that you are or aren't a mass murderer or that you will or will not engage in any killing sprees in the future.
3.There is therefore too much risk in letting you roam free when there is this much uncertainty over your disposition.
4.Thus, even though it would be immoral to lock you up, we should do it anyways because the potential consequences of keeping society safe trump your right to freedom.

 

[BladeVenom]

Australia is the best example. There was a mass shooting in the 90s. The government tightened up gun laws, and even started a buyback program. Hundreds of thousands of guns were returned and destroyed. Since the laws were enacted there has not been one major killing spree in Australia. Gun homicides have dropped by 59%.

That is my example of how gun control is effective and the results it can provide.

Mass shootings aren't that common. So they likely wouldn't have had another one, even without gun control.

Germany has tougher gun control than the US, and they have had several mass shootings.

Mexico has really tough gun control. Take a look at their homicide rate.

The US has greatly increased the numbers of guns in our society and the number of people carrying guns, and our homicide rate has dropped 40%. So more guns = less homicides.

 

[demingo]

Another failed consequentialist argument. You are once again trying to justify an inherently immoral act by arguing based solely on the perceived beneficial consequences of that action.

Such an argument is easily extended.

Thus, I propose the following extension of your argument :

1.You are potentially a mass murderer.
2.I have no way of knowing that you are or aren't a mass murderer or that you will or will not engage in any killing sprees in the future.
3.There is therefore too much risk in letting you roam free when there is this much uncertainty over your disposition.
4.Thus, even though it would be immoral to lock you up, we should do it anyways because the potential consequences of keeping society safe trump your right to freedom.

Actually, we already do that but thanks for trying. People are forced by the state into mental hospitals if they are deemed a danger to society or themselves, even if they have not actually committed a crime. If reasonable risk exists (such a severe mental problem), then the person is locked away even if they have committed no crime.

 

[demingo]

Mass shootings aren't that common. So they likely wouldn't have had another one, even without gun control.

Germany has tougher gun control than the US, and they have had several mass shootings.

Mexico has really tough gun control. Take a look at their homicide rate.

The US has greatly increased the numbers of guns in our society and the number of people carrying guns, and our homicide rate has dropped 40%. So more guns = less homicides.

The US has had far more mass shootings than Australia in the same time frame.

Germany, while it has had incidents, has a homicide rate by firearm of 1.1 per 100,000 people. The US is 10 times that at 10.2 per 100,000 people. Apparently their gun control laws are effective.

Mexico. Well you got me there. However I would say Mexico is also no where near the developmental status of the US or other nations I have mentioned.

 

[demingo]

They're going to involve a group of soldiers, with rifles nearly identical to what the average citizen can buy, who have to make a decision to either obey their orders, or obey their oath to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

This is the type of purely imaginary speculation that pro-gun people think up. To think a military would purposely weaken itself to fight a conflict is laughable. Why would, after deciding to use military force, any military decide to "make it a fair fight"?

At no point in recorded history did a force with a technological or personnel advantage simply lay down half its arms, or limit its weapons, to get the opposition a fighting chance. By your logic the US should ship all its tanks, humvees, jets, helicopters, and drones home from the middle east, since they would want a fair fight. Its absurd.

On a far more personal note. I have a significant amount of family that lives in a former Eastern Bloc nation. This family was involved in work to overthrow the occupying Soviet Union and to establish a democratic government. The USSR was overthrown not with guns and armed conflict, but with debate and enlightenment of citizens. They were able to convince everyone of their position while being chased and detained by Soviet secret police. And they were able to rally enough people to their cause to have the Soviets withdraw. They accomplished this without the open war against government so many here believe they need guns for.

 

[c3141hf]

Actually, we already do that but thanks for trying. People are forced by the state into mental hospitals if they are deemed a danger to society or themselves, even if they have not actually committed a crime. If reasonable risk exists (such a severe mental problem), then the person is locked away even if they have committed no crime.

The fact that you can't see how wrong that is is, in and of itself, disturbing. Giving the state the power to unilaterally declare someone "mentally insane" is the same as giving them the power to imprison anyone for any cause.

Perhaps another example is in order :

1.There exists a neighborhood that is currently all white.
2.A black family moves in.
3.The black family has no criminal record and none of the members of said family have committed any crime.
4.Blacks statistically commit more murders.
5.Even though this family has done nothing wrong and they themselves are not criminals, the neighborhood holds a vote and decides to kick them out.
6.Because the majority of people voted to kick them out because they determined the risk is too high, it is perfectly acceptable according to your teleological line of thinking even though this family has done nothing wrong.

It should be fairly obvious to you, by now, the danger of such lines of thinking. Proper ethics must, by necessity, look at the action itself. To blindly ignore the actions you take simply because they produce convenient consequences is dangerous.

 

[Red Machine D]

The fact that you can't see how wrong that is is, in and of itself, disturbing. Giving the state the power to unilaterally declare someone "mentally insane" is the same as giving them the power to imprison anyone for any cause.

Perhaps another example is in order :

1.There exists a neighborhood that is currently all white.
2.A black family moves in.
3.The black family has no criminal record and none of the members of said family have committed any crime.
4.Blacks statistically commit more murders.
5.Even though this family has done nothing wrong and they themselves are not criminals, the neighborhood holds a vote and decides to kick them out.
6.Because the majority of people voted to kick them out because they determined the risk is too high, it is perfectly acceptable according to your teleological line of thinking even though this family has done nothing wrong.

It should be fairly obvious to you, by now, the danger of such lines of thinking. Proper ethics must, by necessity, look at the action itself. To blindly ignore the actions you take simply because they produce convenient consequences is dangerous.

Two things about your argument here:

1. The government does have the power to imprison anyone for any cause. See: Manning, Bradley.

2. Under your own Randian philosophy, the example you used about kicking a family out of a neighbourhood is well within the rights of the citizenry, and is in fact a right that nearly all Libertarians want.

 

[c3141hf]

Two things about your argument here:

1. The government does have the power to imprison anyone for any cause. See: Manning, Bradley.

2. Under your own Randian philosophy, the example you used about kicking a family out of a neighbourhood is well within the rights of the citizenry, and is in fact a right that nearly all Libertarians want.

Ayn Rand was not a libertarian in any sense of the word.

 

[Red Machine D]

Ayn Rand was not a libertarian in any sense of the word.

That's because Libertarianism of the time wasn't the extreme-right psychosis that it is today.

 

[evilsofa]

However, if I was a crook, I'd take that map as those that are armed and NOT to break in there. Maybe it will backfire and the crooks see the other homes as easy targets.

The top three things that burglars want are cash, jewelry, and guns. They will break in between 10am and 3pm while everyone is at work and school.

 

[Righty]

Troof.

I kicked 3 turtles on the way home while eating every mushroom I can find, just like my favorite video game character.

Yes, cartoon turtles getting hopped on is exactly the same as photo realistic brains getting blown out while the shooter curses demeaningly.

Anyhoo the NRA is just trolling. Wake up you nincompooops.

 

[zero1945]

On a far more personal note. I have a significant amount of family that lives in a former Eastern Bloc nation. This family was involved in work to overthrow the occupying Soviet Union and to establish a democratic government. The USSR was overthrown not with guns and armed conflict, but with debate and enlightenment of citizens. They were able to convince everyone of their position while being chased and detained by Soviet secret police. And they were able to rally enough people to their cause to have the Soviets withdraw. They accomplished this without the open war against government so many here believe they need guns for.

Is this what they teach in public schools? The USSR was not "overthrown" it collapsed into bankruptcy.

 

[Stiletto]

That's because Libertarianism of the time wasn't the extreme-right psychosis that it is today.

EXTREEEEEME! People who disagree with me are EXTREEEME! They think crazy things! They think taxes should be kept low, and that government spending should also be kept low! They think they have the right to defend their lives! They think they have things called "rights"!

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Libertarian views are right-wing now?

 

[Stiletto]

Libertarian views are right-wing now?

Well, ideologies are always evolving. As the Republican Party has increasingly distanced itself from organizations like the Tea Party, and has really only sought support from the evangelicals in their base, I think more conservatives are finding themselves lining up with libertarians. I think this crossover is further enhanced by the movement of the left from the label "liberal"(which originally meant in favor of liberty) to "progressive"(which is more in favor of increased government power in the name of social equality), and those who feel that left-wing politics should still question government power are being disenfranchised.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Got it. Everything that isn't progressive is right-wing.

 

[Stiletto]

Got it. Everything that isn't progressive is right-wing extremism.

FTFY

 

[MasonD]

lol

 

[LeninGHOLA]

FTFY

I forgot that part.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

The US has had far more mass shootings than Australia in the same time frame.

Germany, while it has had incidents, has a homicide rate by firearm of 1.1 per 100,000 people. The US is 10 times that at 10.2 per 100,000 people. Apparently their gun control laws are effective.

Mexico. Well you got me there. However I would say Mexico is also no where near the developmental status of the US or other nations I have mentioned.

WRONG.

Stop trying to skew the numbers to suit your argument. The Homicide rate in the US for firearms is 3.7 per 100k, not 10.2. 10.2 is the number of firearms related deaths by any and all variables. If you want to use Australia as the standard comparison their rate was .09. While it is lower, the numbers in the US aren't all that high. Getting pretty tired of people throwing numbers around pretending they know what they are talking about when they are just talking out of their ass. Also when you look at the actual homicide by firearms of each country, it paints a different picture. What the other number indicates is that people need better training and or are part of the group that isn't controllable (i.e suicides).

Freedom comes at the cost of risk and responsibility. Death by firearm is one of the MANY risks you accept for the cost of freedom. If you want to live in a police state where your freedom is an illusion, feel free to move to another country. Our forefathers didn't fight to let the government control people that way, our Veterans myself included in that certainly didn't fight to allow the government to control people and those currently serving certainly aren't fighting for that. We fight because we believe in the Constitution of the United States and Accept the Responsibilities and Risks that go with that belief. If you don't, you are welcome to get out.

 

[demingo]

EXTREEEEEME! People who disagree with me are EXTREEEME! They think crazy things! They think taxes should be kept low, and that government spending should also be kept low! They think they have the right to defend their lives! They think they have things called "rights"!

I will admit this is playing devil's advocate here, but I really want to see how the people who constantly yell about their "rights" respond.

How do you justify your position that you have a "right" to guns, based in the Constitution, and ignore the right granted to anti-gun activists by article 5 to amend the constitution to add or remove parts as deemed necessary?

Both are rights set forth in the Constitution. The founding fathers specifically added article 5 so we would have a method of modifying our laws if any part of them were deemed to not work in the future. Just food for thought on how our government is setup.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

I will admit this is playing devil's advocate here, but I really want to see how the people who constantly yell about their "rights" respond.

How do you justify your position that you have a "right" to guns, based in the Constitution, and ignore the right granted to anti-gun activists by article 5 to amend the constitution to add or remove parts as deemed necessary?

Both are rights set forth in the Constitution. The founding fathers specifically added article 5 so we would have a method of modifying our laws if any part of them were deemed to not work in the future. Just food for thought on how our government is setup.

How would people respond to having various other rights removed "as deemed necessary"? Free speech? Voting rights? Private property?

Why do you put "right" to guns in quotes?

 

[Stiletto]

How do you justify your position that you have a "right" to guns, based in the Constitution, and ignore the right granted to anti-gun activists by article 5 to amend the constitution to add or remove parts as deemed necessary?

Go for it. Seriously. I'm not worried about what the population of the United States thinks.

What I am more worried about are "representatives" that are anything but. It's what the original revolution was about - taxation without representation. Remember when liberals were all upset about a president abusing executive privilege? Suddenly, they defend that concept when it's their own guy doing it.

 

[demingo]

Our forefathers didn't fight to let the government control people that way, our Veterans myself included in that certainly didn't fight to allow the government to control people and those currently serving certainly aren't fighting for that. We fight because we believe in the Constitution of the United States and Accept the Responsibilities and Risks that go with that belief. If you don't, you are welcome to get out.

This is pure comedy. I do not have to get out. Our forefathers specifically put in a measure into the Constitution to allow people to edit it as we see fit. Article 5 gives us the right to admen the document as we see fit. So if you want to quote the history of this nation and our constitution, yes, I can revoke your 2nd amendment right. If I can convince enough people to support the idea as defined by article 5 I can make the 2nd amendment go goodbye. In addition, speaking out and attempting to gain the support is my 1st amendment right, as it is yours to attempt to convince people not to support my position.

But of course you are just a nut job who believes that anyone who disagrees with you just needs to "get out" because for some reason you own this country. Get real dude. If you really support the Constitution read the whole thing and realize that just because you don't like something doesn't mean others cannot support it and enact change.

 

[Stiletto]

people who constantly yell about their "rights"

Interesting that you put quotes around "rights" when directly addressing them. Why is that? Why do you see the concept of rights as questionable?

All I know is that there are some people who are less comfortable having the right to make choices than they are comfortable having the government make choices for them. If that's the case, trust me, there are plenty of countries out there to suit your preferences. Just please stop trying to make America like the rest of them.

 

[demingo]

How would people respond to having various other rights removed "as deemed necessary"? Free speech? Voting rights? Private property?

Why do you put "right" to guns in quotes?

I would actually be opposed to all those rights being removed. As would many other Americans. Same as many Americans would be opposed to the 2nd being repealed.

I was simply playing devil's advocate to state that no single right is above another in this nation, nor is any amendment untouchable. This is something that is in the text of our law.

If you want honest analysis, I do not think we would ever gain enough support to repeal the 2nd. I think it is here to stay, but that does not mean we cannot debate it. We can debate it, government can pass control laws, people can challenge those laws in court, courts can rule on their constitutionality, people can elect officials which will change laws they don't like.

That is what I love about this nation, nothing is set in stone and I detest the position of some people that what they believe in is set in stone and those who disagree need to "get out".

I'm with you there completely. However I blame the people not the politicians. Too many people vote party line or ideological belief instead of record and history. If we had a greater percentage of Americans actually interested in politics and active we should enact more change. We should force our representatives to represent us. This country needs far higher voter turnout and voter education. I did not ever vote again for a single politician who voted for the Patriot Act. And it was most of them. It is unfortunate that most voting age Americans didn't care as much as I did.

 

[Stiletto]

I was simply playing devil's advocate to state that no single right is above another in this nation

Actually, most constitutional scholars agree that the Bill of Rights was assembled in its order on purpose, to list the most important rights first. Hence, the most important right is freedom of speech, expression, press, and religion. Without freedom of ideas, you have no freedom. Second comes the arms with which to protect your freedom of ideas from those who would use force to restrict them. Third prevents armed government forces just waltzing in and treating your home like their own without your consent, and so on.

 

[Stiletto]

I'm with you there completely. However I blame the people not the politicians. Too many people vote party line or ideological belief instead of record and history. If we had a greater percentage of Americans actually interested in politics and active we should enact more change. We should force our representatives to represent us. This country needs far higher voter turnout and voter education. I did not ever vote again for a single politician who voted for the Patriot Act. And it was most of them. It is unfortunate that most voting age Americans didn't care as much as I did.

I know it's trendy to blame people, and they're not entirely blameless I admit...but when the politicians are barely distinguishable, and we're locked into a two-party system that fosters such crappy candidates, what do you expect the people to do? I certainly didn't vote for either of the chuckleheads at the top of the ballot, but it's going to take a lot more people to make that kind of protest worthwhile. It isn't helped when rhetoric like "war" and "extremism" are working to dissuade people from breaking the mold and actually taking a hard look at the systems that are eroding away at our security and prosperity. Soon enough, we're going to be dealing with the actual concept of "war" if that kind of crap continues.

 

[demingo]

Actually, most constitutional scholars agree that the Bill of Rights was assembled in its order on purpose, to list the most important rights first. Hence, the most important right is freedom of speech, expression, press, and religion. Without freedom of ideas, you have no freedom. Second comes the arms with which to protect your freedom of ideas from those who would use force to restrict them. Third prevents armed government forces just waltzing in and treating your home like their own without your consent, and so on.

I have heard this argument often, but my counter point is simple. If the Bill of Rights was untouchable, then Article 5 would have a clause that protects it from being edited. While it did have a time delay factor built in, Article 5 does not limit amendments from impacting the Bill of Rights. To me that is a deliberate choice made by the people who drafted the document.

 

[Stiletto]

I have heard this argument often, but my counter point is simple. If the Bill of Rights was untouchable, then Article 5 would have a clause that protects it from being edited. While it did have a time delay factor built in, Article 5 does not limit amendments from impacting the Bill of Rights. To me that is a deliberate choice made by the people who drafted the document.

Just because it's not untouchable does not mean the rights are flawed. All it meant was that the Founding Fathers wanted the citizens to have the power to change things. For example, alcohol was both banned and unbanned using the power of amendment. Same with suffrage and the end of slavery. Note, however, that none of the original amendments in the Bill of Rights is ever discussed as needing a change other than the Second...yet the Second(arguably, I suppose) is the key amendment protecting the very concept of consent of the governed. If people have no choice but to consent, how can consent be established?

Put another way, think of the attitudes we have in society right now regarding date rape. Lately, it has suddenly become an issue of controversy as to whether the hookup you're taking home has given explicit consent to what you want to do with them. Did they change their mind halfway through? Were they too drunk to know what they were doing? Consent is awfully murky in that regard. There's only one clear indicator of lack of consent: when she pulls out her Bersa 380 and says "not tonight".

 

[demingo]

I know it's trendy to blame people, and they're not entirely blameless I admit...but when the politicians are barely distinguishable, and we're locked into a two-party system that fosters such crappy candidates, what do you expect the people to do? I certainly didn't vote for either of the chuckleheads at the top of the ballot, but it's going to take a lot more people to make that kind of protest worthwhile. It isn't helped when rhetoric like "war" and "extremism" are working to dissuade people from breaking the mold and actually taking a hard look at the systems that are eroding away at our security and prosperity. Soon enough, we're going to be dealing with the actual concept of "war" if that kind of crap continues.

True it is very difficult. I go back to my prior example of that Eastern Bloc nation. It was of course Poland I was referring to. Poland was in the early 80s under marshal law. There was no two party system, it was the communist government or jail. There was no freedom of press, there was no internet to easily spread ideas. The Solidarity movement still managed to gain enough support, print out enough underground newspapers, to rally people's hearts and minds to push for an overthrow of the communist government. It took a very long time, but with almost zero violence the Soviet government gave up it's power and Poland was reformed as a free democracy closely modeled after the US.

It is very possible for people to stand up to government. Government is simply people as well, not some force. If you convince enough to side with your position government will fall. I believe we could avoid a significant amount of issues in this country if people would only be as politically active as the citizens of Poland in the 80s. We also have the benefit of free speech and modern communications tools. There is no excuse for the American populace to be uninformed.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

True it is very difficult. I go back to my prior example of that Eastern Bloc nation. It was of course Poland I was referring to. Poland was in the early 80s under marshal law. There was no two party system, it was the communist government or jail. There was no freedom of press, there was no internet to easily spread ideas. The Solidarity movement still managed to gain enough support, print out enough underground newspapers, to rally people's hearts and minds to push for an overthrow of the communist government. It took a very long time, but with almost zero violence the Soviet government gave up it's power and Poland was reformed as a free democracy closely modeled after the US.

It is very possible for people to stand up to government. Government is simply people as well, not some force. If you convince enough to side with your position government will fall. I believe we could avoid a significant amount of issues in this country if people would only be as politically active as the citizens of Poland in the 80s. We also have the benefit of free speech and modern communications tools. There is no excuse for the American populace to be uninformed.

Polish people had the benefit of going up against a dead husk of a government.

 

[MasonD]

snip..

I have natural rights, the government doesn't give me any and it can't take any away from me. Natural rights are untouchable rights. Once stepped on, men will die to bring them back. Once stepped on again, men will die to bring them back again, and on and on and on. It matters little what someone wrote down. We just like when what is wrote down matches what is natural, it makes life a little easier. So...there is a line in the sand so to speak, it can get better but it can't ever get worse, our natural rights that is. As long as common law doesn't step on natural law, everything is great! Step on my natural rights though (like my right to protect/defend myself) and we have a fucking problem. After all, more stuff is stolen with pens than guns.

Thomas Paine (1731–1809) further elaborated on natural rights in his influential work Rights of Man (1791), emphasizing that rights cannot be granted by any charter because this would legally imply they can also be revoked and under such circumstances they would be reduced to privileges:

It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice. The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.​

 

[Stiletto]

It is very possible for people to stand up to government. Government is simply people as well, not some force. If you convince enough to side with your position government will fall. I believe we could avoid a significant amount of issues in this country if people would only be as politically active as the citizens of Poland in the 80s. We also have the benefit of free speech and modern communications tools. There is no excuse for the American populace to be uninformed.

While there is no excuse, there is a clear explanation, and sadly it has nothing to do with government.

Ask the average person the name of either of their Senators, or the name of their representative. Hell, ask them the name of the vice president.

Then ask them the name of their football team's quarterback, or the name of their favorite YouTube star, or the name of who won last year's American Idol, or the name of which reality TV star showed their pussy last week.

We are a society inundated with distractions, and the human mind, literally, can only handle so much data and information. When you're busy expending your energy rooting for sports teams, celebrities, and other useless pop culture, you have no energy left to fight for things that matter. And let's not forget that it's not merely pop culture. People have jobs to tend to, and families. The plain fact of the matter is that most people have never been very politically active. The best time for America was when people were still civic-minded, and while that is a distinct mindset than political awareness, it was sufficient to keep the powers-that-be on their toes. Now, however, you're considered a nutjob if you even consider keeping a week's worth of food and water at your residence. Once, that was called "civil defense". Now it's "survivalism".

In short, we've built a culture that lauds time-wasting and loathes people who prepare for bad things to happen. We don't want anyone harshing our good time with the reminder that the good times can come to an end, and frankly, the debate about the right to keep and bear firearms falls squarely into that category. Firearms are little different than that week's worth of food and water, or the knowledge of how to perform CPR, or actually putting away money or items of value as a buffer against rougher economic times. The more people actually do these kinds of things, the less all of us have to worry. See? You can actually combine the suggestions of crazy right-wingers with the sentiments of left-wing pussies and produce a positive outcome!

 

[Bladestorm]

I have natural rights, the government doesn't give me any and it can't take any away from me. Natural rights are untouchable rights. Once stepped on, men will die to bring them back. Once stepped on again, men will die to bring them back again, and on and on and on. It matters little what someone wrote down. We just like when what is wrote down matches what is natural, it makes life a little easier. So...there is a line in the sand so to speak, it can get better but it can't ever get worse, our natural rights that is. As long as common law doesn't step on natural law, everything is great! Step on my natural rights though (like my right to protect/defend myself) and we have a fucking problem. After all, more stuff is stolen with pens than guns.

Thomas Paine (1731–1809) further elaborated on natural rights in his influential work Rights of Man (1791), emphasizing that rights cannot be granted by any charter because this would legally imply they can also be revoked and under such circumstances they would be reduced to privileges:

It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice. The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.

Not bad, but I prefer this quote by Lysander Spooner

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

― Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution Of No Authority

You can read the whole thing here.

 

[zero1945]

True it is very difficult. I go back to my prior example of that Eastern Bloc nation. It was of course Poland I was referring to. Poland was in the early 80s under marshal law. There was no two party system, it was the communist government or jail. There was no freedom of press, there was no internet to easily spread ideas. The Solidarity movement still managed to gain enough support, print out enough underground newspapers, to rally people's hearts and minds to push for an overthrow of the communist government. It took a very long time, but with almost zero violence the Soviet government gave up it's power and Poland was reformed as a free democracy closely modeled after the US.

It is very possible for people to stand up to government. Government is simply people as well, not some force. If you convince enough to side with your position government will fall. I believe we could avoid a significant amount of issues in this country if people would only be as politically active as the citizens of Poland in the 80s. We also have the benefit of free speech and modern communications tools. There is no excuse for the American populace to be uninformed.

You keep spreading misinformation. The Soviet Union did not "give up" power. It was FORCED to give up power because it was thoroughly bankrupt and collapsed on itself. They were even begging the Germans (!!) at the end for loans before they disintegrated.

Please stop saying this. You are wrong.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

This is pure comedy. I do not have to get out. Our forefathers specifically put in a measure into the Constitution to allow people to edit it as we see fit. Article 5 gives us the right to admen the document as we see fit. So if you want to quote the history of this nation and our constitution, yes, I can revoke your 2nd amendment right. If I can convince enough people to support the idea as defined by article 5 I can make the 2nd amendment go goodbye. In addition, speaking out and attempting to gain the support is my 1st amendment right, as it is yours to attempt to convince people not to support my position.

But of course you are just a nut job who believes that anyone who disagrees with you just needs to "get out" because for some reason you own this country. Get real dude. If you really support the Constitution read the whole thing and realize that just because you don't like something doesn't mean others cannot support it and enact change.

Glad you are laughing because your inability to read is frightening. I said you are welcome to leave if you don't like how things are in this country and want to live in a police state. I didn't tell you to get out. So save your nutjob comments for yourself. As for article 5, it was never intended to remove rights and as such isn't applicable to the argument and you are grossly simplifying its purpose. Oh yes I have read the constitution. Sorry to shoot your feeble attempt at twisting it to mean something out doesn't down.

Next time try reading.