To those making value judgments on the action or inaction of the bystanders, I invite you to read the following excerpt, as well as implore you to fully consider the moral implications of your perspective.


"'Sacrifice' is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one
or of a nonvalue. Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to
which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger
or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those
one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always
act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a
greater value to a lesser one.
This applies to all choices, including one’s actions toward other men. It
requires that one possess a defined hierarchy of rational values (values
chosen and validated by a rational standard). Without such a hierarchy,
neither rational conduct nor considered value judgments nor moral choices
are possible."


"To illustrate this on the altruists’ favorite example: the issue of saving a
drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper
to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the
danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem
could permit one to value one’s life no higher than that of any random
stranger. (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger
to risk his life for one’s sake, remembering that one’s life cannot be as valu-
able to him as his own.)
If the person to be saved is not a stranger, then the risk one should be
willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that person’s value
to oneself. If it is the man or woman one loves, then one can be willing to
give one’s own life to save him or her—for the selfish reason that life
without the loved person could be unbearable."

"No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an
unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be
no such thing as 'the right to enslave.'"


Now if there was a police officer, legally entrusted to serve and protect, who did not act, or the peoples of the bus had made a prior agreement to act as a unit in the event of emergency, one could make a moral case against inaction.

With regards to those arguing for/against the usage of certain items in self defense:

"There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action— which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life"

If you believe this to be true, you cannot make any rational argument against an individuals choice to carry any particular (inherently benign) item--knife, gun, or otherwise. It is this fundamental human right from which the right to bear arms is derived--not statistics, culture, or personal beliefs.

(quotes from Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness")

No. The right to bear arms was written in there to ensure that the people had a means to revolt if necessary. (It's about damn time, if you ask me).

Therefore, I am saying that they can keep them, but no, the right to fire them (even on your own property) is not a Constitutionally-given right.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
No-fire zones are there to keep hunters and morons like this guy from discharging a weapon within range of people's houses. This is not a trampling of the 2nd amendment. The law does not say you can't own a gun in the area, it just says you can't fire it in the area, and understandably so.


Are you saying then "The right to bear arms" means "the right to own guns, but not use them unless under strict governmental control"? Not sure I agree with that, though I have to admit when I was a wee youngin', my dad would let me fire .357 rounds from our front porch (he'd be holding the gun with me, obviously), so I'm not that terrified of guns and gun ownership. I suppose, I'm more of a libery-first kind of guy.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Obama has voted contrary to his common sense stance on gun control.

That link seemed a bit strange as evidence of your conclusion -- the quote at the top is the general statement of his position: there's a right to bear arms, but there's also reasonable limits we're allowed to place on the right.

The rest of the page is filled with comments/votes on what he considers reasonable -- you might disagree with what he considers reasonable, but he isn't voting contrary to his stated opinion.

As with all politicians This man is a wolf is sheep's clothing.
"americans cling to their guns out of bitterness?" - I dont care if that was a slip up or not, Explain what the hell that means?

He means that people are so used to getting fucked over by government on economic issues, they focus instead on gun rights, and start voting counter to their own economic self-interest on the basis of issues that probably have less impact on their life as a whole than the economic ones.

Here's a video where he explains it himself.

I don't cling to any thing, to me a firearm like an axe (both deadly) is a tool.

This is an argument I've heard over the years, but it's disingenuous to try to equate an axe with a firearm. An axe is usually used to chop wood, which is pretty non-lethal. Sure, it can be a deadly weapon, but that's not it's purpose. Guns on the other hand are designed to kill things -- in other words: a weapon. Sure, there are places you can practice with them without killing things, but that doesn't make it a tool.

I'm picturing Homer Simpson using a 44 Magnum to open his beer...it makes as much sense as that.

To think that a gun is any more dangerous than the person standing next to you in the subway is folly. Because with out the human element steel and cordite are just objects, they cannot act on their own accord.

This is a fair point, to a certain extent. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," is true. Concluding that therefore we should make it as easy for people to kill each other as humanly possible because of it, seems misguided at best.

Despite what's grown into a very long post -- I'm pretty ambivalent about gun rights. I don't think we can get rid of them entirely, so law-abiding people should be able to buy them. I don't want just anyone to be able to get them, at any time, no questions asked, though. I'd like to own my own assault rifle, just in case someone starts a revolution, but even then, I'm not convinced it'd help me much in that situation, either.

>> ^NetRunner:
I'm confused, the rest of the Bill of the Rights went away with the signing of the PATRIOT act, is anyone really surprised that the 2nd amendment was ignored when it was considered inconvenient, years later?
As for the "blame Obama" set, you should read up on his actual position -- he agrees there's an individual right to bear arms, and said so before and after the Supreme Court decision.
He's no NRA member to be sure, but he's also not who ordered this to happen -- that was a Republican from Texas, who was endorsed by the NRA, and is defended by them still.
I swear, if a Republican Senator came to your house and shot your dog, some of you would cry foul about how the Democrats are to blame.


I think the point here was that Obama is the candidate in favor of tighter gun control. He's not as bad as Sen. Feinstein of California who thinks guns are the devil, but he doesn't seem to be on speaking terms with the NRA either.

The best thing about this video is that it proves the second amendment is utterly useless. If the government ever becomes a dictatorship and is supported by the military, your little pea-shooters will not help you.

Of course what happened to the people in this video is repulsive. Nobody should ever be treated that way while the second amendment stands. I will support your constitutional right to bear arms as long as it is part of the constitution, but if it ever gets properly amended, I will cheer.

I'm confused, the rest of the Bill of the Rights went away with the signing of the PATRIOT act, is anyone really surprised that the 2nd amendment was ignored when it was considered inconvenient, years later?

As for the "blame Obama" set, you should read up on his actual position -- he agrees there's an individual right to bear arms, and said so before and after the Supreme Court decision.

He's no NRA member to be sure, but he's also not who ordered this to happen -- that was a Republican from Texas, who was endorsed by the NRA, and is defended by them still.

I swear, if a Republican Senator came to your house and shot your dog, some of you would cry foul about how the Democrats are to blame.

>> ^bcglorf:
I would say this is fear mongering, only from the left this time. Bush and Cheney might be crazy enough to do something like this, but the right to bear arms will be what stays their hand. They aren't so ignorant as to realize that even martial law couldn't stop the resulting uprising from a president with the lowest approval ratings ever calling off an election.


I agree. They've been experts at keeping radical action "low key", and suspending elections would spark an instant revolution. If they were planning that, Fox News would be talking about the possibility day & night, to lay the groundwork in the public consciousness.

I could believe that list was given to the Democratic leadership, and that they caved, rather than call the bluff.

More likely though, I think you're right about Nader just trying to scare Democrats into voting for him.

However, if we have a domestic terror attack between now and the election, I'm going to become a full believer in conspiracies, because that won't be a coincidence at all.

I agree with you bcglrf, I believe the elections will go on as planned. There have been no moves to lead people to believe that it's inevitable that bush would suspend the elections, but it is a completely legitimate concern that people should not discard.
As for the martial law and the right to bear arms I don't think you can compare the weapons that Iraqis might have at their disposal with that of what Americans might have. Iraqis had and possibly still have access to the stock piles of military weapons and explosives that were just sitting around at the time of the invasion. Theres also the possibility that some are being equiped by nations such as Iran. Thats a far cry from what many if not most Americans have access to let alone even know how to use. In addition to that the American public has already proven themselves to be too apathetic to do any real fighting. Most people don't even have the motivation to pick up a phone and voice their concerns to their local congressmen let alone pick up a rifle or resist in any physical way.
Lastly, and I hate this thought, but what if bush actually did suspend the elections. Would the hardcore bush loyalists actually fight to keep him in office for...well as long as he saw fit, and do so under the thought that its for the "protection" of this country. Not all Americans would be fighting on the same side.

As for the right to bear arms, hunting rifles and pistols won't take this nation back. There might be a few folks out there, maybe even a few hundred that might have a formitable arsenal stored in their basement but nothing can stop the mechanized forces of this country. In my opinion the "Right to bear arms" is a moot point.


I don't think one can argue that martial law would be effective in the US at the same time as arguing how ineffective it is in Iraq. The guys fighting against the alliance in Iraq would envy the kind of weapons many American civilians keep around their homes. I'm pretty confident the next election will proceed on schedule.

>> ^bcglorf:
I would say this is fear mongering, only from the left this time. Bush and Cheney might be crazy enough to do something like this, but the right to bear arms will be what stays their hand. They aren't so ignorant as to realize that even martial law couldn't stop the resulting uprising from a president with the lowest approval ratings ever calling off an election.

You could be right bcglorf,
but after the things that this president has done over the last 7 years I don't think it's fear mongering at all. He has proven himself and those around him to be completely power hungry as well as 100% untrustable. At this point I wouldn't put anything past him. As for the right to bear arms, hunting rifles and pistols won't take this nation back. There might be a few folks out there, maybe even a few hundred that might have a formitable arsenal stored in their basement but nothing can stop the mechanized forces of this country. In my opinion the "Right to bear arms" is a moot point.

I would say this is fear mongering, only from the left this time. Bush and Cheney might be crazy enough to do something like this, but the right to bear arms will be what stays their hand. They aren't so ignorant as to realize that even martial law couldn't stop the resulting uprising from a president with the lowest approval ratings ever calling off an election.

I'm really confused though how neither the reporters or troops seemed to think about the constitutionality of what they're doing.

I'm not thinking the fundamental problem is with government protecting us, I'm thinking the fundamental problem is when government flagrantly exceeds its authority.

Fat lot of good the guns they had did them when troops came with M16's to take their guns, huh?

BTW, I wonder if there's footage of Blackwater troops doing this? That's much more legitimate, since they're making a profit off sticking M16's into the faces of hurricane survivors. No constitutional problems there, they're just exercising their right to bear arms against their fellow citizens. Not their fault Uncle Sam is picking up the tab at the end of the day.

All conflicts are resolved through means.

Still it is a right to bear arms, meaning your rights to CCW and house weapons cannot be infringed.


Most guns that hunters use now days will still penetrate a target. The fools don't think about what happens when that bullet passes through a target. I don't hunt I think its foolish.

But I do think about what can happen with stray bullets, I opt for soft metal blend shells. These tend to not go through a barrier or a person should the time ever arise that they be used. Which is very rare (However more likely when at a gas station).

>> ^IRISH4LIFE:
I AM IRELAND AND WHAT CAN I SAY I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST AMERICA I REALLY HATE BUSH ALL HE WANTS OUT OF THE IRAQ WAR IS THE OIL AND HE KNOWS IT I PLAY XBOX LIVE WITH ALOT OF AMERICANS AND MOST OF THEM ARE ALRIGHT SOME CAN BE REAL THICK HEADED SEE THIS IS THE THING ALL YOU PEOPLE BELIVE THE MEDIA WELL I SAY F K THE MEDIA AND F K ALL U HATERS I BET MOST AMERICANS ARE SAYING THE SAME THING ABOUT EUROPEANS. IF IT WASNT FOR THE AMERICAN ARMY IN WW2 HITLER WOULD HAVE TAKING OVER ALL OF EUROPE. AND WHAT WOULD HE HAVE DONE IF HE DID


Like hell you're Irish. GTFO.

On Topic: You can all go on wondering why the rest of the world are filled with scorn ( I wouldn't say hate) for America while you


-Bitch about Bush but elect John Mc Cain (You know it'll happen).
-Bitch about Guantanamo for 5 minutes but forget about it because American Idol is on.
-Occasionally get off your asses and protest at something the governement has done, not noticing that THEY ARE NOT PAYING ANY ATTENTION TO YOU AT ALL. They've realised you are happy with your little token protests while they go and do what the fuck they want.
-Equate patriotism with obeying your government unquestioningly. You pledge allegiance to the flag, not the rich men at the top. When did America become a frigging monarchy?
-Say how disgusted you are at the news of every new high school massacre, yet defend your "Right" to bear arms for no good fucking reason. "But if guns are illegal how'll we defend ourselves against people with guns?!" (Someone will try to defend it here too).
-If I start on your foreign policy I won't stop so I'll call it quits there.

I upvoted the video as a good example of the drivel the majority of Americans will lap up.


Ignorance must be bliss, huh.

EDIT: Heavens, just noticed how cross I sound.