Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

sdbest · Jul 28, 2007, 08:13 pm

Those who defend the U.S. 2nd Amendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" argue about how important this amendment is to "keep America free." Most argue how important bearing arms is for protection.

I propose that the notion of bearing arms is so important and so socially beneficial that it be made an obligation, like wearing seat belts or motorcycle helmets is in some jurisdictions.

Everyone who is 16 years or older must at all times openly carry a loaded firearm. People who fail to carry a firearm will be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.

Wouldn't this make the country safer?

Regards
S.

Kamehameha34 · Jul 28, 2007, 08:27 pm

Heh, your kind seems to have a "banned, or mandatory" policy on just about everything.

sdbest · Jul 28, 2007, 08:49 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Kamehameha34

Heh, your kind seems to have a "banned, or mandatory" policy on just about everything.

I wouldn't ban you from volconvo and I wouldn't make it mandatory for you to post. So clearly "everything" is hyperbole.

Do you have anything useful to add to the idea of an obligation to bear arms? You do have an obligation to wear clothes in public places. So what's the problem with an obligation to carry a gun?

You seem very good at complaining about things, but very poor at suggesting viable alternatives.

Regards
S.

Kamehameha34 · Jul 28, 2007, 09:14 pm

Quote:

You seem very good at complaining about things, but very poor at suggesting viable alternatives.

The viable alternative to what I complain about is to end it.

Why you think the current system based on choice isn't a viable alternative escapes me.

Quote:

Do you have anything useful to add to the idea of an obligation to bear arms?

Yes. It shouldn't exist. No victimless crime should.

Quote:

You do have an obligation to wear clothes in public places.

You say this as if I agree with it.

Quote:

I wouldn't ban you from volconvo and I wouldn't make it mandatory for you to post. So clearly "everything" is hyperbole.

Seem to says: Hello sdbest, I am a qualifier. I usually precede a pointed statement to maintain its validity while not diluting the point of it.

ryanatau · Jul 28, 2007, 11:10 pm

The point to the Bill of Rights is not to give the people rights, rather it is to give the people liberties. The difference being this: rights mean a person can do something; liberty means the government cannot do something. So, the government should not be allowed to take away our right to carry arms, but society can.

It is dangerous to allow the government to remove one of the first ten amendments because then it will set a precedent allowing the government to remove any right or liberty they deem as dangerous.

Technosoul · Jul 28, 2007, 11:20 pm

We have put together a national guard to protect individual states (not so much to fight forien wars by the way) and that is how we "arm our self" and so feel free to join them and arm your self. Bearing arms for united protection is of little worth if you do not have a united plan and have selected those who will direct those plans in case of an emergency, just haveing a bunch of yo yos with guns does not cut the grade, save as in the case of the guard units that can be put into effect by the governor of a state.

And we hire and train policemen to do the same thing, in the hope that such self defence can be organized and to prevent untrained mobs from doing radical things in the name of justice.

If you join the state guard or the police force then it should be mandatory that you carry a weapon and are properly trained. But not mandatory for everyone due to the fact that we have arranged the systems needed. (although imporvements are needed). Not mandatory for those who are not in the guard or police force.

Osborn F Enready · Jul 28, 2007, 11:28 pm

SDBEST, people have the RIGHT to carry arms, and it is not the role of government, nor the auspice of government to mandate their ownership or carrying of such.

It seems you have a fascination with authoritarianism.

Autolykos · Jul 30, 2007, 09:25 am

Safety is not my foremost concern. Freedom is.

I oppose a requirement to keep and bear arms because it would diminish freedom.

- Rob

sdbest · Jul 30, 2007, 09:40 am

Quote:

Quote by: Autolykos

Safety is not my foremost concern. Freedom is.

Isn't "freedom" just another word for nothing left to lose?

Regards
S.

Autolykos · Jul 30, 2007, 09:49 am

Quote:

Quote by: sdbest

Isn't "freedom" just another word for nothing left to lose?

Not in my opinion.

- Rob

Jul 28, 2007, 08:13 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
sdbest No prisoners! Location: Southern Ontario, Canada Posts: 959	Required to bear arms Those who defend the U.S. 2nd Amendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" argue about how important this amendment is to "keep America free." Most argue how important bearing arms is for protection. I propose that the notion of bearing arms is so important and so socially beneficial that it be made an obligation, like wearing seat belts or motorcycle helmets is in some jurisdictions. Everyone who is 16 years or older must at all times openly carry a loaded firearm. People who fail to carry a firearm will be subject to fines and/or imprisonment. Wouldn't this make the country safer? Regards S. -- Stephen Best http://www.stephenbest.ca

Jul 28, 2007, 11:10 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
ryanatau Leibniz Posts: 286	The point to the Bill of Rights is not to give the people rights, rather it is to give the people liberties. The difference being this: rights mean a person can do something; liberty means the government cannot do something. So, the government should not be allowed to take away our right to carry arms, but society can. It is dangerous to allow the government to remove one of the first ten amendments because then it will set a precedent allowing the government to remove any right or liberty they deem as dangerous. "...all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge." -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr

Jul 28, 2007, 11:28 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	SDBEST, people have the RIGHT to carry arms, and it is not the role of government, nor the auspice of government to mandate their ownership or carrying of such. It seems you have a fascination with authoritarianism. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Jul 30, 2007, 09:25 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Autolykos Logical Phallussy Location: In your internets. Posts: 2,991	Safety is not my foremost concern. Freedom is. I oppose a requirement to keep and bear arms because it would diminish freedom. - Rob "I'd rather be free and alive!" -- Ron Paul Religion isn't the greatest threat to mankind -- authoritarianism is. The Anarcheion Zeitgeist

Jul 28, 2007, 08:27 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Kamehameha34 The dingos! Posts: 4,331	Heh, your kind seems to have a "banned, or mandatory" policy on just about everything.

Jul 28, 2007, 11:20 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	We have put together a national guard to protect individual states (not so much to fight forien wars by the way) and that is how we "arm our self" and so feel free to join them and arm your self. Bearing arms for united protection is of little worth if you do not have a united plan and have selected those who will direct those plans in case of an emergency, just haveing a bunch of yo yos with guns does not cut the grade, save as in the case of the guard units that can be put into effect by the governor of a state. And we hire and train policemen to do the same thing, in the hope that such self defence can be organized and to prevent untrained mobs from doing radical things in the name of justice. If you join the state guard or the police force then it should be mandatory that you carry a weapon and are properly trained. But not mandatory for everyone due to the fact that we have arranged the systems needed. (although imporvements are needed). Not mandatory for those who are not in the guard or police force.