By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
osamanobama on 29 November 2011
Edit Thread
Mr Khan said:
osamanobama said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Well this goes back to the varying definition of "rights" at the end of the day. But as with most of our supposedly inalienable rights, they only extend so far. Even if we are to entertain the idea that private property is inalienable, that should not quench the notion that private property can be curtailed in extreme scenarios (e.g. excessive wealth) or in small doses across the board, much like so many elements of the Bill of Rights are undermined, and yet these underminings are accepted (can't create a clear and present danger with free speech, the right to own assault weapons is not protected, etc.). My point is not that the government can get away with these things, but that they are tolerated because we have common sense in our applications of rights.

The right to private property and against slavery is, at its moral foundation, meant to stop the government from crushing the middle and underclass, not meant to keep the government from taking Mr. Howe's third yacht.

so who should be the overlord determining if you have to much wealth or not. who are you or anyone else to decide if someone has too much money.

 

as for the right to own an "assault weapon" not being protected, that is  flase. and the term "assault weapon" is erroneous in it self. any weapon can be an assault weapons, they are all assault weapons. and we do have the right to have, much to liberals disdain.

Not really. The Supreme Court has, in the language on its rulings on gun control, stated that the right to high-end assault weapons is not unlimited.They simply have not made an actual ruling on the matter since they have not had a chance to, though the government is pondering bans on the high-capacity clips used to mow down Gabriel Giffords, and i would imagine that that is the sort of thing they're talking about.

And assault weapons is a perfectly viable term: these are weapons that have no use other than aggressive endangerment of the lives of others. You don't need an M16 for self-defense, and if you claim you do, you're either paranoid or a liar. Even with the bad excuse that things like handguns can prevent more violence than they cause, there is a class of weapons with no good other than assault on other persons.

And as for who determines what is enough? We do. That's the point of democracy, is to make equitable decisions for self-governance, with certain ground rules in place that are much harder to change for the peoples' own good.

and what exactly is a high capacity clip?

5 rounds, 10 rounds, 15, 20, 50, 100. what is it. if i want a weapon that can fire a 100 rounds, so be it.

and you also dont need need an hand gun for self defense, just as much as you dont need a shotgun, or an M16 (im assuming you are talkng about the AR15).

its not a binary thing, guns arent just for self defense OR attacking people. there are many other reasons for them. like collecting, hunting, sport, and fun and rereation.

 

So democracy now decides if one has too much money, shit im sure glad i dont live in a democracy like that.