Politicians/Media Refuse "proudly Gun Free" Sign

nope...

Why do we even elect people then!?

because he's severely deluded from too much political science class...

Of course not. Rule by decree is a principal function of democracy. It's very first historical reference comes from ancient Rome.

We elect them to make decisions that we are too ignorant to make for ourselves.

all four of those middle things wouldn't exist without the government, the government is derived by the people, without the people the government and by proxy the politicians, laws, courts and law enforcement couldn't exist.

NO NO and NO....... ( I do agree with ignorant part) We elect officials to look out for the will of the people..... When they dont we vote them out of office.

Government is a form of regulation. Regulation is basically laws. Laws are derived from nature.

That statement partially doesn't make sense. If you agree with man being too ignorant and therefore electing officials to make laws. How do you explain "the will of the people." The people are too ignorant to understand their own needs.

sorry man, don't agree.

we are supposed to elect officials to support our best interests regardless of our "will" (as the majority of people are ignorant), what we actually do however is another story...

ah something we can all agree on: most people are ignorant.

Show me an example of how government isn't a form of regulation?

Show me how we don't use laws to regulate?

Show me how the will of the people dictates laws? WITHOUT using a politician as an intermediate.

Just leave my guns alone.

Point taken....

I don't agree that you chalk it all up to "laws are made by nature"

as laws aren't made by nature, laws are made by people.

laws of physics are made my nature.

OOOOOOOHHHHHHH

I don't see why not when after all people/humans are part of nature and nature is the driving force behind man.

Everything from our right to live...

our right to propagate...

our right to defend ourselves...

our right to love....

Those are all basic functions of nature.

I wouldn't say all of those are rights, nor would I say that nature derives laws, just because man was created by nature.

Proves again BW has very little real world experience.

Nature only has one law, kill or be killed.

I offer you a chance to easily denounce my premise. Find a wild tiger / bear / boar / lion / bobcat / coyote, walk up to it and give it a big guy to show it your "right to love". Let us know how that worked out for you.

What, your survival instinct has you grasping for some sort of excuse on why you can't go out and spread love and happiness to all the natural predators of the world. How convenient, maybe your genetics are worth preserving and passing on to the next generation.

Nature is wild and full of blood and gruesome death. It's also full of beauty and life. The Antelope has beautiful children, half those children become meals for the local predators. Welcome to nature, be happy you don't have to live in it.

You gotta understand Bacon is pro-Communist and dreams of one day creating an utopian society where he dictates his edicts to the ignorant mass's as they worship his divine image. This is from many of the statements he's made that all coincide with the belief that government exists to control and enslave people "for their own good".

Not to argue Cuelebrewrap's position for him, but to try to explain it a little clearer, I think he is referring to the theory of "Natural Law" as espoused by John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, et al...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

...which is the basis of the thought used to form the "inalienable rights" concept of the US Constitution (among other similar governments formed at the time.)

He's not stating that nature (by way of trees/flowers/hug-able and non-hug-able animals) instills any rights but, in line with the "Natural Law" concept, that humans have certain inherent rights (which then lead to new ideas such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and purely secular versions such as the tenants of Secular Humanism.)

As an extension, humans then enter into the concept of the social contract by which they give up certain amounts of individual liberties/natural rights that would have existed without a specific government, in order to enjoy the protections of a given society. I'm sure that's what he's trying to indicate by stating that government in itself is a form of 'regulation' or control over populations (this exchange of rights.)

Of course, the tipping point is the degree to which rights are given up for the amount of benefits (or lack thereof) "enjoyed" by each citizen, and the point where rights are so eroded that a fascist state is created instead of one that benefits the citizens.

Sorry for the tangent, but this thread went from a specific instance to a general discussion about government and law and rights, and from where (philosophically/historically) they might be derived. (But I guess that's the nature of anything-past-Page-9.) :p

Because direct democracy becomes exponentially time inefficient as population increases. Also due to the range of topics covered the average voter wouldn't know wtf the issue is about.

Honestly consolidation of power makes sense. It kills me to say this as a libertarian but... a technocracy is probably a very good idea right about now.

While I didn't read all 15 pages of this, I think that not only people here but people in general need to rememeber this. Not just in reference to guns, but to everything people seem to be screaming to regulate for, under the guise of safety(the biggest I can think of right now are the TSA, gun regulation, the patriot act, and there's probably a lot more).



--http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04.htm

Are you suggesting gun rights = essential liberty?

The biggest argument I see for ownership is against the rare occasion a person would break into your house and try to kill anyone. But in that instance do you really think said person is going to give you the chance to defend yourself if that is his sole purpose? Chances are in that rare occasion he is going to wait to your asleep sneak in as quietly as he can and not give a chance.

So if that's the argument it's a weak one compared to the risks of having a gun around the house.

Which shows your lack of knowledge. The right to own a firearm is guaranteed by the same entity that guarantees your (American Citizen) right to vote, post your opinion on the internet, have a legal defense, and not have your private property stolen by the state (the last one is iffy as the government has created several work arounds). Abolishing one right establishes the precedent that it's "ok" to abolish all rights if the reason is "FOR THE CHILDREN!!!". Whatever reasoning is used to abolish the 2nd Amendment, it can then be used to abolish the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and so on until US citizens have the same rights as the Chinese.

I got that. The main word here was essential. As far as I can see when these laws were written that may have been the case. In today's world, sorry, can't see it as essential. Laws should be upheld to reflect current society, not held onto for an age old thoughts and traditions.
Society isn't going to collapse by changing some law that is outdated. Hopefully the people elected have the sense to argue what laws are needed an which aren't. Otherwise what's the point of those people being in power.

Sorry. Guns aren't as important as freedom of expression. It's as simple as that. Sorry it's so hard for some people to understand. Guns are killing instruments. They're tools meant solely to KILL. It was mentioned earlier that "don't blame the tool, blame the people." Hammers are meant to put in and pull out nails. A rock is part of the environment. A screwdriver is for screws. All of these can be used as weapons, but only a gun is meant to kill. Whether it's another person or an animal. It shoots out hot slugs of metal that can severely wound or kill people.

Your arguement is a slippery slope, it's invalid. The British for example have very tight gun laws (you can't really own one in the UK, and even most police officers don't carry firearms, but you can shoot for sport and such), and they're nowhere near the Chinese in terms of human rights, no? YOUR right to own a rifle, or a shotgun, or a pistol, or an assault rifle that can mow down an entire room of people isn't as important as the safety to NOT have our children or other people get shot by psycho gun nuts, or mentally disturbed people who get their parents' guns, then kill their parents, then turn those guns on other people.

I think we've forgotten that the right to be able to effortlessly kill someone is not as important as the right to be able to live safely. The military needs assault rifles, not common citizens. No one was suggesting a blanket ban on everything though. We tried that with alcohol and we all should know how that ended up. We can't put the genie back in the bottle. We just need to toughen up gun laws so people who shouldn't have guns would have a harder obtaining them. It's worth the inconvenience if we can save lives and make the country safer.

And regarding being able to own a plane or a tank as one guy said, do you recall a certain incident on 9/11 where terrorists flew airplanes into our buildings and killed around 3,000 people, and injured over 6,000 more? I don't think more guns would have prevented that, nor more people able to own or fly planes either.

people still don't seem to comprehend that the bill of rights aren't just laws, they're the limitations placed on the government itself.

They're our freedoms, they supersede any "law."

they are also timeless.

actually it's right under it in terms of importance.

you don't have a right to feel secure. The right to bear arms isn't the right to effortlessly kill something, that's a ludicrous assertion to make, at the least.

and guns aren't tools of murder, they're tools designed to shoot projectiles.

The US isn't the UK, stop comparing the two like they're comparable.

Out right to bear arms supersedes your right to feel safe.

The common citizen needs to be armed just as well as the military, if not better.

Gun bans don't stop people who want to hurt others from having them, it's crazy to think so.

actually having guns would have prevented 9/11 as the asshats who flew planes into buildings wouldn't have been able to take over a plane with a damned box cutter.

there's nothing in the bill of rights that is outdated.

3rd Amendment says hi. Being forced to quarter soldiers isn't typically something anyone has to deal with anymore.

because it is illegal, and the NAQA created after the war of 1812 says high.

Although, the civil war, and ww2 raise some questions.

It's still relevant, just because they haven't attempted to violate it in a long time, doesn't make it irrelevant.