Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Why religion, economics, and war?
Oh, and Einstein, although there are other justifications for ensuring the right to keep and bear arms, they are all redundant, because the primary justification for the right to keep and bear arms is for national readiness for war.
Xeno your wrong, you would be a better man to admit it.
Kemp I am disappointed in you! You forgot target shooters who view it as a recreational sport!
Please punish yourself with a wet noodle for this omission.
I think I get what xeno is saying now.
Every protection guaranteed under the Constitution, whether it be freedom of the press, double jeopardy, or freedom of religion, has one thing in common: their purpose is to check against the government. Freedom of speech was made so that we could protest and voice our opinion about government. The right to a fair trial ensured that the government didn't jail protesters excessively.
Thus, it's reasonable to assume that all constitutional protections were created as a method to create checks against the government.
So then what about the right to bear arms? As cited here, it has three functions:
Hunting
Protecting your home against intruders
Rebellion
So which of these would Jefferson want to protect? Certainly, nobody's saying that Jefferson didn't like hunting. However, you can like many things, yet think they're not worthy of being written in the Constitution: I like Civilization 3, but that doesn't mean I think a constitutional amendment should be written to protect my right to play the game. Look around the Constitution and ask if there are other sports that were constitutionally protected just because they're fun. Any? Is there a soccer amendment?
The way to figure out the "primary justification" for the 2nd amendment, then, is to imagine a modified weapon. Pretend that we live in a world where the gun has only one of the above uses. Would Jefferson have written a constitutional amendment to protect our freedom to hunt? Hunting's nice, but is it really on par with the other amendments?
How about the right to protect your home against intruders? Now this is debatable. I'll leave that between you guys, and I would love to see Flint's reaction. However, it seems like "the right to protect your home against intruders" would, under the Constitution, fall as more of a state's rights issue, as written. But that's just me.
But what about if the only purpose for the gun was open rebellion against the government? Would that be constitutionally protected? It seems to fit into the formula that all amendments are there to create checks against the government. This seems, then, to be the most logical of the three.
@Zarf
Yeah. I thought it was obvious that the fundamental rational for the 2nd amendment was to retain a check and balance on governmental power.
Our constitutions, whether you are British or American, French or Hungarian, were fought and die for through WAR - rebellions against oppressive monarchies. Some constitutions were signed by monarchs with their temples snugly held against the muzzle of a musket in some cases. Constitutions were wrenched into being through WAR conducted by common people, and thus it was simply common sense for those common people to demand it be made a right for those common people to keep and bear the weapons by which they had waged the rebellion in the first place, so as to retain the capability to successfully wage a rebellion again in the future if in fact an authoritarian / totalitarian government were to oppress freedom again in the future.
I mean did you actually expect them to agree to hand over their guns after their monarch signed a piece of paper? No. Of course they would retain the 'arms' necessary to enforce the social contract. Often, monarchs negotiated that the common militiamen would be organized and regulated by the government so as to keep 'arms' out of the hands of just anybody. But, for the most part in America, the musket was / had to be kept by pretty much every household, as it was a frontier land.
Preaching to the choir. 
Xeno 1, Flint/Kemp 0
More nonsense:
>>although there are other justifications for ensuring the right to keep and bear arms, they are all redundant, because the primary justification for the right to keep and bear arms is for national readiness for war.<<
Go look up "redundant," xeno syndicated. You don't know what it means. Nor are you any authority on what is the "primary" justification for the right to bear arms. You have in no way discounted the arguments made against gun control which are not related to war.
I ate the noodle, Einstein. My apologies.
He didn't specify the US Constitution, Zarf BeebleBrix. He just referenced the topic of gun control. You're way off-point. What's the name of the fallacy where everyone starts talking about unrelated topics because they can't respond to the points made their argument again? I know xeno's familiar with it.
LOL @ You_Fool. What a joke.
And so, now, back to the issue at hand. Why are the issues of religion, economics, and war so 'popular' among politics forum posters? To recap, some state it is simply because these issues are what effect us most in our current time. Others state that such topics are universal to human beings, appealing to our human nature. But perhaps there's more to it than that. Perhaps at heart, it effects our survival as a species - that on some level we are all most interested in these topics because they deal with our collective mission as a human species: survival.
Guns =/= War
Alright, that's it Einstein is ignored now, too. (I basically was ignoring him before, too, so I don't know how this changes anything really.)
[].
meh he ignores the text of my postswhen they do not suit his worldview. I am not upset.
I think actually you guys are ignoring his point, it is quite valid in this case, though perhaps he hasn't been clear. When he says gun control is covered in war what he means is that the origin of right to own a gun generally come from the masses staging a revolution of some stage and ensuring such freedoms were specifically guaranteed under the new social contract (constitution) between the people and the government. The justification being that the masses needed some sort of bargaining chip after the revolution to ensure they don't get raped again later. The fact that now a days the justification to keep the freedom is more to do with social shooting does not stop the fact that the under-writing reasoning for the freedom in the first place is war, and thus gun control, at least when argued with and against constitutionals rights, generally has a base in the very generalised topic of war. This is even more justified because whenever you have an argument about gun rights and gun control, those in favour of liberal gun laws, such as the US has, the point of defence against a corrupt government generally gets brought up alongside social recreation and defence of property/self/family arguments. In most cases the social recreation arguments generally have the lesser focus put on them in most arguments, thus even furthering the association with war (be it against a corrupt government or lawlessness.) I know Xeno is generally completly out of whack with reality, but in this case I stand by my previous comment, Xeno 1, right wing idiots 0.
In a side note, I find it amusing, and possibly a little ironic, the comment by flint.
i have not seen a single gun discussion discussing the origins of the right to bear arms, but the current legitimacy of the right to bear arms regarding the modern benefits and disadvantages of having the right to bear arms, inwhich case it does not fit the war category.
also, not one commented on my idea as the first response to the OP? gay! those are the three main topics, because everyone thinks they know a lot about religion, economics, and war..... everyone has parents that are of one religion (counting atheism as a religion) so everyone thinks they know something about religion. almost everyone has a job so they know about making ends meet and think they know about economics. and everyone has gone to school and learned about wars, so they think they know a lot about wars.... if you think you dont know anything about a subject, you would rarely debate about the subject....
> avogadro wrote:
> everyone thinks they know a lot about religion, economics, and war; but in reality, most don't.
>everyone has had personal experiances with religion, with economics (making a living) and have been taught about many wars. and they think that >qualifies them to discuss these topics. and then when personal experiences between two individuals or two groups clash, you end up with a long >drawn out thread. its not that we are more interested in these topics, but that these topics are universally common throughout the world.
So what you are saying is that the biggest topics about these three options because that is what everyone argues about.... almost circular arguments there... probably true though.
>> I have not seen a single gun discussion discussing the origins of the right to bear arms, but the current legitimacy of the right to bear arms regarding the modern benefits and disadvantages of having the right to bear arms, in which case it does not fit the war category.
I have seen flint, yell, Kemp, BW, JA and all other right wing morons use that argument along with self/property/family defence around 80% of the time, with social recreation normally keeping up a distant third, notably only given any significance in this thread where the argument is that it is a minor part of the issue, or at least a minor part of the origin of the issue. That said it has been awhile since a good gun control flame feast... err I mean argument came up so maybe it is a more historic statistic...
On a side note I failed to point out in my previous post that Flint had made a mistake (I know!) When he said "Thomas Jefferson disagrees with that author" then quoted T. Jefferson on the issue, he failed to realise that Jefferson did not have to mean that the reason for the 2nd amendment was for social recreation, more that because everyone has a gun then it could be used for social recreation, and that he was in favour of such a use. This does not mean that the social use of a gun was the intent of the 2nd amendment, more a positive spin-off of it instead. You cannot hold Flint
"So what you are saying is that the biggest topics about these three options because that is what everyone argues about.... almost circular arguments there... probably true though."
no, i am saying the biggest topics are about these three options because that is what everyone feels they know enough about to be qualified to discuss.
you fool, do the gun threads drag on due to discussion of what the founding fathers thought, or do the threads drag on from discussing current day pro's and con's of gun control? i am pretty sure its the latter....
Avo: They tend to drag on with useless stats about if guns cause more violence or not, hardly social recreation. I think there is enough to equate using guns in defence of self/property/family with war in any event.
Why are we discussing guns? Flamers / Hijackers / Spammers 1 > authentic political debaters 0
We are discussing the definition of your topic, it is an important part of a debate to clearly define the topic to be discussed...
Alright. I'll define the topic as such: the topic is an analysis of our (the IC politics forum community's) motivation to discuss topics pertaining to religion, economics, and war.
I'll start.
I am motivated to discuss topics pertaining to religion, economics, and war because I think such discussions help form understanding of current events as predictive of future trends in our collective consciousness (useful to me as a writer) as well as future trends in the economy (useful to me as an investor).
Then why do you troll and not respond to people who want to discuss the ideas presented in your posts?
What do you, ☭ Fokker, Khaz Modan, Zarf BeebleBrix, ..Nemeara.., esa, avogadro, You_Fool, Chris_Balsz, think is the definition of the current topic?
If you, ☭ Fokker, Khaz Modan, Zarf BeebleBrix, ..Nemeara.., esa, avogadro, You_Fool, Chris_Balsz, think my definition of the topic as being an exploration of the motivations for us to discuss topics relating to Religion, Economics, and War, what is your personal motivation to discuss said topics?
Xeno you fail.
My topics on guns runs 80% about attempts to ban, no war mentioned, but gun violence.
Just accept it as a fourth topic and you can try to move on.
Can You ever accept another persons arguments?
Imperial Forum → Politics → Why religion, economics, and war?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.