Florida school shooting: Students to march on Washington

If it gets to the point that the state is taking away our human rights, it is better for that state to be overthrown, or more likely just broken up.



It is not just a "thing." It is liberty. It is being an autonomous citizen with inviolable rights instead of a collectivized subject with "rights" when the government feels like it. Germany puts people in prison for having opinions, why are we holding them up as a paragon? We are the freest country on earth because we understand that our rights come from God and can't be taken away. I love the constitution, but it only enshrines rights that were already there and widely understood to be beyond state revocation.
America is no more free than any other first world country. I'd even argue its not as free, because of how the government treats its minorities. And God belongs nowhere in politics, this is a flaw in the current system despite the constitution clearly stating "separate from church and state". Having guns shouldn't be a right, but a privilege. Its not important to our health, it doesn't help us in any way really. Its ridiculous that this mentality persists when healthcare is seen as a privilege and not a right. People have a right to live and be healthy. The constitution needs to be re written to better reflect a modern era. Its really such a shame that this country still abides by a 250 year old manuscript.
 
The intent of the 2nd amendment is now outdated. If the government were to oppress its people, your guns can't stop tanks, drones, bombs, etc.. When it was conceived, the government and the people had access to similar weapons.
 
The intent of the 2nd amendment is now outdated. If the government were to oppress its people, your guns can't stop tanks, drones, bombs, etc.. When it was conceived, the government and the people had access to similar weapons.
As repeatedly and tiredly said, a tank requires infantry to support it and immense fuel and maintenance requirements(tanks are TERRIBLE vehicles for combating an insurgency), a drone still has an operator on American soil as well as their families (in other words, vulnerable) and planes require large stretches of widely known tarmac and are very easily damaged on the ground by the most basic of hunting cartridges.
A guerilla war with a resistance melting in with the populace is our governments worst nightmare scenario.
As an aside, are you aware of how exposed our power and utility grids are? And I can promise you the government would need those more than a resistance.
 
Last edited:
Which is why you are wrong.
you are saying "rights" are only the things explicitly outlined as part of the constitution. The ninth amendment expressly states that that is not true, and that people have rights that go beyond a piece of paper.

And again, we are back to the ridiculousness that owning a gun is more of a right than not being murdered, enslaved, raped, or falesly imprisoned.
Which is prima facie nonsensical.

You have the lawful right to do anything that is not illegal.
When laws change, those rights are therefore curtailed.


Its not like the gun nuts were up in arms over Guantanamo and things like waterboarding which are a flagrant breach of the constitutional protections against "cruel and unusual punishment"
You're really wrong with this statement. We actually do have a right to not be murdered (or any of the other things you mentioned), as part of our rights to life and liberty which are obviously of paramount importance. What the ninth ammendment is really meant to convey (I am not a constitutional lawyer) is that citizens of the US have a right to anything even if it's not specifically enumerated in the constitution, as long as that thing doesn't violate the rights of another person. Saying things like a right to murder and rape and all that makes you appear very sophist and makes it harder to debate with you genuinely.

For gun control, I don't own a gun myself. However, I value liberty above everything else, even when it gives bad actors the ability to take advantage of such freedoms and commit horrible deeds. There isn't a right answer to this question, it really boils down to what are you comfortable giving up in an effort to make the country safer (or at least create such a perception). I am not comfortable saying everyone in the country should give up their guns. Other people obviously are. Even if someone could gauruntee me no one would ever do anything illegal with a gun again if such laws were passed, I would still be against them. I don't believe governance should happen based on how the worst of us would abuse freedoms, but rather it should enable as many freedoms as possible and punish those that take advantage of them as its able to.
 
I won't wade into an argument I know little about (specifically gun control), but I think I can contribute something regarding perceived and actual individual liberty and my experience with it.

I've lived in the US (3 years; the more liberal states, California then New York State, also Quebec Canada) and also in Beijing, Xi'An and Shanghai in China (4 years). I currently reside in Sydney, Australia and have done so for a total of 15 years. Before all this I was born and lived in Southern Europe (Croatia).

You might balk, but the freest, least intrusive experience from the perspective of a regular Joe who just wants to work, get wasted on weekends and party with friends in private, in public, on the sidewalk, etc; China is by far the freest society. Not because their laws are more liberal. On the contrary. For the simple fact that they can't enforce any of them, and will never be able to, owing to the demographic reality of the country in question. They can't micromanage individuals, unless said individuals start a political movement and become famous/publicly outspoken in their own right. That they can pinpoint and micro, typically with house arrest or fines.

So if you want a taste of true freedom as a regular individual, it may sound dubious, but give China a bash. Sipping beer at McDonald at 3am with your friends acting rowdy? All good, people just smile.
Yes, you can buy a rifle in Shanghai and go shooting, at a designated range mind you. I used to shoot at one of the Shanghai naval museums at the navy yard. However if you're a foreigner you need special permission to enter active military bases.

Like in Europe, here in Australia things are comparatively Orwellian. A copper will throw you in the back of the paddy wagon for simply drinking in public. Prancing the streets at 3am with some friends? Expect to be picked up by cops or fined.

In the US situation is looser, but cops are trigger happy and kind of wound up, making them far more dangerous than most criminals. I really hate the gung ho attitude of american cops, their training seems comical/lacking. Like they were trained at a studio lot for a movie. I was threatened twice by cops in LA for basically minding my own business.

In China cops don't carry weapons of any sort. They are armed with radios.

For those of you balking at the prospect of greater gun controls (I guess I will wade into that debate after all) keep in mind your puny small arms would get bulldozed by anything resembling a repressive state apparatus; one sporting tanks, attack helicopters, jets and drones. If the $1 trillion American military industrial complex turns against you, guns won't save you. you will stand as much chance as the unarmed Chinese against the PLA. This isn't the 1800's. Force multipliers are overwhelming. 1,000 irregular fighters armed with assault rifles would get creamed by a single F-16 sortie, spotted by AWACs with thermal cameras and drones long before they knew they were already dead.

That said I don't think federal gun restrictions will do much to change the situation in the US. The black market is prolific and the borders remain porous. It's more about the culture. Throw in abysmal mental health care (or the complete lack thereof-pills here, pump some pills!) and you got the formula for what we see so often. School shootings, as tragic as this sounds, have become an American tradition. Traditions are difficult to shake. Resorting to extreme measures could make things worse. Sales of Assault Rifles shot up 15% in Florida after the school shooting, oince talk about regulation picked up. You have to work around your cultural realities, not over them.

Here in Australia, there are stringent firearm restrictions, but you can still own shotguns and rifles. Even then, surrounded by water on all fronts, you can purchase an illegal handgun or assault rifle, granted it's $2,000-$5,000 which is 10x more expensive than in Florida, but anybody can get a micro loan these days. People do, and people get shot in Sydney and also Melbourne on a weekly basis.

Alas, such is life.
 
As repeatedly and tiredly said, a tank requires infantry to support it and immense fuel and maintenance requirements(tanks are TERRIBLE vehicles for combating an insurgency), a drone still has an operator on American soil as well as their families (in other words, vulnerable) and planes require large stretches of widely known tarmac and are very easily damaged on the ground by the most basic of hunting cartridges.
A guerilla war with a resistance melting in with the populace is our governments worst nightmare scenario.
As an aside, are you aware of how exposed our power and utility grids are? And I can promise you the government would need those more than a resistance.
Whenever this subject comes up, the opposing side always erects an overweight strawman with a beer in one hand and AR15 in another getting creamed by drones.

Let me put it this way - if it were so easy how come the Brits did not crush the IRA in a matter of days?
 
You're really wrong with this statement. We actually do have a right to not be murdered (or any of the other things you mentioned), as part of our rights to life and liberty which are obviously of paramount importance. What the ninth ammendment is really meant to convey (I am not a constitutional lawyer) is that citizens of the US have a right to anything even if it's not specifically enumerated in the constitution, as long as that thing doesn't violate the rights of another person. Saying things like a right to murder and rape and all that makes you appear very sophist and makes it harder to debate with you genuinely.
Because there are multiple arguments being made.
FYI, there are places in the world right now where things like raping women because they are considered property, killing people as a mob with no trial because they have broken social rules of morality, torture to exact confessions, or vanishing dissidents in the night with no charges are all considered rights of the people within those regimes.

Whenever this subject comes up, the opposing side always erects an overweight strawman with a beer in one hand and AR15 in another getting creamed by drones.

Let me put it this way - if it were so easy how come the Brits did not crush the IRA in a matter of days?
The IRA are a terrorist organisation, and what really stopped them was that 9/11 happened and the dumbshit americans that were funding them under an illusion that they were brave freedom fighters trying to drive out an occupying force woke up as to what they were really funding when it showed up on their own doorstep.

You're saying the second amendment would allow you to be terrorists if you want to.
Thats literally the reason people are calling for gun control. Because spree shootings are a form of domestic terrorism, and a majority of people would really like to see that stop happening.
 
These teens don't know that they're being used for a very dangerous political agenda that involves fingering themselves with rifle holes. As a white man, I can say this will start a Captain America: Civil War in the US in theatres near you.