See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Quiz Time: (Hypothetical Question)
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 17, 2008
Author: Neil McIver
Post Date: 2008-04-17 21:33:40 by Pinguinite
Keywords: None
Views: 896
Comments: 73
Okay, 4umers, quiz time. I've got a hypothetical question for you. Suppose you were in a funny situation where you had the opportunity to reconstitute the 2nd Amendment, doing away with all 20,000 or so gun laws. The power was in your hands to make it so. But there's one catch. In order to make this wish come true, you first had to pick up a gun, put it to the head of an innocent 7 year old girl, and pull the trigger, blowing her brains out. With that task completed, the 2nd Amendment would be restored all across America. Would you do it? If your answer is "yes" then this quiz is over for you. You may resume your perusing of 4um and disregard the rest of the test. If your answer is no, then we'll expand our hypothetical scenario. After you refuse to kill this girl, someone else steps up and says "I am also interested in restoring the 2nd Amendment, and I am willing to do what must be done for you. If I am elected president, I will shoot this girl and then the 2nd Amendment will be restored". Question: Do you vote for this man or not? It would seem that some people here on 4um would happily endorse the death of this girl one way or another in order to restore 2nd Amendment rights. I am not one of those people, which is why a couple days ago I wrote the following: This apparently earned me the label of "gun grabber" in the minds of a few here. I honestly don't know why. Honestly. Does the phrase "expense of lives of innocents" mean something other than "murder" to people here? I really feel like I've entered the twilight zone. You know, where the whole world changes but you don't. In this case, it's like learning suddenly that a bunch of 4umers would indeed blow the brains of of a little girl if it helped to secure some of their own "liberties". I am really amazed that a number of people here take exception to my statement. As this hypothetical scenario applies to the real world, if there was a pres candidate promising to work to fully restore the 2nd Amendment in the USA while simultaneously promising to bomb the rest of the world into oblivion, I could not in good conscious vote for him. Call me crazy or call me a gun grabber if you want, but if not being willing to kill this way makes me a gun grabber, then I hope I'm a gun grabber for life. But I would not, could not support such a "pro 2nd Amendment" candidate. Never. If I am truly in the minority on this point on 4um, then perhaps I should resign my account and leave you all. Thank you for reading.
For us to try to safeguard our 2nd Amendment rights at the expense of lives of innocents worldwide doesn't fly in my book.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-4) not displayed.
.
.
.
#5. To: Pinguinite (#0)
(Edited)
You are not alone. BTW, thank you for the bozo filter.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
There was a Twilight Zone episode where a hillbilly died and he refused to go into heaven if it meant he had to leave his dog outside, but it turned out that that "heaven" was really hell, and because he didn't abandon his dog, he got to go into the real heaven. So don't shoot the girl.
Or like the little girl in "The Bad Seed."
Great story, dog. You made my day.
I would not shoot her, nor would I vote for someone to do it by proxy. An honorable man who feels strongly that an idea is more valuable then a human life should affirm that upon receiving that offer. But then should demure from killing another saying, "Sorry, she is innocent, and that is God's purview to do or not, not mine. I am helpless to fulfill your proposal, as you speak of me doing what is ethically not for me to do." You must obey the sixth commandment if you are of the religion that accepts the Ten Commandments. It says in modern English, "You will NOT murder." You may slay in battle an antagonist and not sin, but as for killing an innocent for any reason, never. Once you violate ethical behavior on that level, your reputation has lost it's standing in the community. You might as well be dead as she would be if you chose to kill her. How can one justify giving their very soul in any transaction? An ethical man with that choice would demure and instead offer his life as a trade to save the Second Amendment instead of her if it meant more then life to him. It is the only honorable thing to do in that situation. Never try to commit the theft of God's purview. You are right in your choice.
I wouldn't shoot the girl, but if I could restore them by skining alive William Kristol, I would. It would be best to hang him upside down, because in recreational flayings they remain conscious longer because of the blood in their head. I'd also toss in Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz. Sometimes life can be so good!
I can kill you with my brain or bash you with my shell -- you choose. -- YertleTurtle
Let me play along. OK, say we stop safeguarding the 2nd as you pose, what can we reasonably expect and from whom?
I'm amazed that some people think that voting for a canidate the will both trample their rights and kill the little girl (Or just mutilate her with a knife, depends on what the focus group advises) is the better choice. The peace at any cost and "lesser evil" crowd will be the death of humanity.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me. "If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
The embeddng is disabled, but the episode is called "The Hunt." Here it is: Click here
I can kill you with my brain or bash you with my shell -- you choose. -- YertleTurtle
It was a memorable episode, as so many were.
I can kill you with my brain or bash you with my shell -- you choose. -- YertleTurtle
One good example of vagueness is the 2d amendment itself. What is a 'well regulated militia?' anyway? But it's funny that today's political midgets, including the ones that are FOR gun rights only dare talk about hunting. Quite pathetic, don't you agree?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Thanks for replying. You're right that Obama may very well keep the occupation going another 4 years. Politicians being what they are, he could do anything. But my statement was generic and not directed toward any particular candidate. Certainly my beatings the past 2 days were for being a gun grabber, not an Obama supporter.
The problem is language by its nature is vague. And we can see today that the efforts of the founders to qualify the 2nd has been used to try to limit it. (I.e. the second was referring to the National Guard). I'm sure the founders could have done better, but I don't think it was possible for them to make it bulletproof. (No pun intended).
An interesting point. Thanks Ferret.
I might have misunderstood, but I figured this was about support for any candidate who was in favor of draconian gun control, which they each are. I don't figure a vote for any one of them or another will make a difference.
Okay, that should be good for an award there, Yertle. Thanks.
Give me the gun.... this is one SOB that does not need to be president of anything! And what you are putting forth here is simply chosing the lessor of two evils..... it can never be done in good conscience. Stop voting and you stop validating THEIR system. There really is no other solution, and the faster that Americans learn this serious lesson, the sooner solutions can be searched out and put to work.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest. ++++++++++ Attention, Shrub; A life of evil is ultimately a life of wretchedness.
Well, "stop safeguarding the 2nd" wasn't an option in this hypothetical scenario, as it was a choice to restore the 2nd or maintain the status quo. But I don't mind fielding the question. Hypothetically, worst case, 2nd Amendment gets completely revoked. All guns become illegal and seized. And then lots of bad stuff happens. Practically, real life, worst case: 2nd Amendment gets completely revoked. All guns become illegal and some are seized. The only ones that have them are criminals and patriots. I guess that's my answer. Does this mean you would shoot the girl?
No, for me it's not peace at any cost. The question here is the 2nd amendment at the cost of murder. Is it worth it?
Yep, the poor thing goes for the greater good.
My original statement, which was really off the cuff (I didn't even make a showcase of it -- it was the second sentence in the second paragraph of a 3 paragraph post) was really comparing the right of one party to live vs the right of a second party to have a gun, as per the hypothetical.
No. Not because the cost is not worth it, but because it changes nothing. Roll back the laws, so what? Within a few generations the same laws will be back on the books and then some and we'll be right back at the same point as right now. The political nature of the problem, insisting that someone we've never met or poses a threat to us must die to safeguard our rights, remains unchanged. Either way, sooner or later the leadership will get around to killing that child. After all, that child is one of the greatest threats to world peace and threatens our allies. So I've been told. Defending ones rights is not murder. If anything, we're at the junction because Americans have refused to defend them. The inaction of the American people as a whole have already sealed that child's fate.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me. "If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
We're all worried about gun control, but meanwhile there's a push on for "Net Neutrality" again. We need the first amendment protected more than anything else. You don't have any hypothetical dilemmas to offer about that problem, do you?
Only one of the choices is proactive. The other (not shooting and not voting for that candidate) is passive, so it's not the lesser of 2 evils unless we say doing nothing in this case is evil. Maybe you would say the "good" thing is to take the gun and shoot the candidate who made such a promise? As for voting=validating the system, perhaps idealistically, but in real life. That's because not voting A) for math reasons is not a practical means of making that statement and B) can actually serve to validate the vote as they can then say "You didn't vote so why are you complaining". So I must differ with you there.
Exactly. It's rather sad. I also can't figure out how we get "campaign finance reform" out of the first amendment, either. This is clearly not the America we were led to believe it was.
Yep, the poor thing goes for the greater good. Okay. Thank you for participating.
You're absolutely right. But this touches on one of the points I was trying to make later in that thread, and that is that, compared to the reality of actively killing people, laws are quite ethereal in nature. I was basically saying "who cares what the laws say. You can keep your guns no matter what. But stop the damn killing". Those I addressed were apparently not impressed.
What are you smoking? How does safeguarding our 2nd amendment rights effect anyone anywhere around the world? What a really dumb quiz.
Tagline space for rent.
Dumb quiz, eh. Fine. Let me spell it out for you. A presidential candidate runs on a platform fully respecting the 2nd Amendment. He promises to veto any and all bills that further restrict 2nd Amendment rights. He promises to stop prosecuting existing gun laws that violate the 2nd Amendment and pardon any past federal violations of unconstitutional gun laws. He also promises to root out terrorists throughout the world starting with Iran. He promises to attack and bomb Iran back to the stone age. He promises to see to it through military might that Iran will not have the ability to have any kind of nuclear program for the next 20 years. Does he get your vote Critter?
I'd protect the child, then turn the gun on the ahole who provided me with that choice, assuming he was standing next to me.. "V"
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition "Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." © IndieTx He also promises to root out terrorists throughout the world starting with Iran. He promises to attack and bomb Iran back to the stone age. He promises to see to it through military might that Iran will not have the ability to have any kind of nuclear program for the next 20 years. Does he get your vote No evil person such as this (the lesser of 2 evils) will ever get my vote. I didn't realize what you were getting at at first...so my answer is still NO. What we need is a good old fashioned revolution.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition "Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." © IndieTx I'd rather put the gun to the head of a politician and shoot HIM/HER if he/she doesn't repeal anti-Second Amendment laws.
"What we do claim is that the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But that is the full statement of the case. They came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves." Rep. William Vaile, Colorado, 1924
See 35. We think alike. ;)
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition "Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." © IndieTx That has got to be the dumbest "hypothetical question" I have ever seen. NO ONE would blow out the brains of a little girl FOR ANY REASON! WTF??? It is a dangerous world. Getting rid of firearms will not make it safer, it will make it more dangerous. But I dont think you should leave just because you disagree with some, or some disagree with you. You have the right to your beliefs, same as I do. But if you come for my firearms, bring a lunch, and get your casket ready.
------They may look intimidating, that's by design; but they aren't bulletproof. -------
Okay, thanks for taking the test, but please read the thread also. There is one person here who defies your prediction. I actually agree that the test is pretty stupid. Three days ago, I would have agreed with your reaction. But it was nonetheless appropriate to post, unfortunately.
But there's one catch. In order to make this wish come true, you first had to pick up a gun, put it to the head of an innocent 7 year old girl, and pull the trigger, blowing her brains out. With that task completed, the 2nd Amendment would be restored all across America. Would you do it? If your answer is "yes" then this quiz is over for you. You may resume your perusing of 4um and disregard the rest of the test. Hello my friend. If given the choice to give my own life to restore everyone's rights I could do that I think. But to take the life of an innocent? No, I couldn't do that. And because she is innocent I could never allow someone else to kill her in my name.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. That was my point, and why I asked for the gun. As for voting=validating the system, perhaps idealistically, but in real life. Oh, yes, in real life absolutely. Tell me, what does this mean? All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ... http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html And if you do not know, why would you be surprised at what has happened to America? Let me give you a clue; to be a subject is to be a piece of property. Care to guess what United States citizenship makes you? As in, 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'? So please permit me to see if I understand: First, 'they' pick two candidates and then let you worry and squirm and donate and then vote/chose who gets to represent 'them' for the next 4/8 years, and you do not understand why, no matter who is elected, nothing changes?! Amazing. Perhaps, someday, when you grow up, you will begin to understand the basis of insanity. When you continue to repeat some process over and over and over, always getting the same result, but still believing that if you just do it ONE MORE TIME something will change....... As in those who donated millions and millions to Dr. Paul (who I happen to like) so that Dr. Paul could pay those millions and millions to the establishment press for air time. And yet those same people, who donated millions and millions, can not even control who gets elected locally, and you still do not get it? what does it take to understand it is their system. It is not broke; IT IS THEIR SYSTEM, and you can not participate without being 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' and therefore being a slave. Slaves have no rights; they depend on civil rights as determined by their betters/masters/rules. But hey, what do I know?
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest. ++++++++++ Attention, Shrub; A life of evil is ultimately a life of wretchedness.
Actually, it is a good question, if stated in a somewhat awkward manner. A better way of putting it would be; Would you vote for someone who would guarentee your 2nd Amendment rights knowing that that someone would then kill countless children as a means of doing so? Because in reality, that is exactly what has happened to America since 1929, and every president since then is a mass murderer, many, many times over. Yet people continue to participate and vote for those murderers, and do not tell me that no one understands. Only fools can not look at history and see it repeat itself endlessly.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest. ++++++++++ Attention, Shrub; A life of evil is ultimately a life of wretchedness.
Yes. 1) His success is not guaranteed. It's hard to murder people if nearby people are armed. If only the criminals are armed, nothing can be done. 2) Gun control laws do not stop murderers. "Yet people continue to participate and vote for those murderers, and do not tell me that no one understands. " It has been my contention for years that individuals can be smart, but people are stupid. The smart ones should not have to suffer the same fate as the stupid. So, we keep the firearms, no matter what the "law" says.
------They may look intimidating, that's by design; but they aren't bulletproof. -------
Someone has to stop Obama, even if it's your hypothetical innocent girl. The decision was easier knowing Obama supports late term abortions, and there isn't a huge leap from that demonic procedure to full blown genocide.
Comments (46 - 73) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: Pinguinite (#0)
I really feel like I've entered the twilight zone. You know, where the whole world changes but you don't. In this case, it's like learning suddenly that a bunch of 4umers would indeed blow the brains of of a little girl if it helped to secure some of their own "liberties".
I've already said too much.
#7. To: Elliott Jackalope (#3)
Is the little girl sweet, innocent, polite, well-behaved and cute? Or is she fat, ugly, obnoxious, bratty and aggravating?
I've already said too much.
#8. To: MUDDOG, Cynicom, YertleTurtle, Jethro Tull (#6)
#9. To: Pinguinite (#0)
Obama for president 2008
#10. To: Pinguinite (#0)
#11. To: Pinguinite (#0)
For us to try to safeguard our 2nd Amendment rights at the expense of lives of innocents worldwide doesn't fly in my book.
#12. To: Pinguinite (#0)
I really feel like I've entered the twilight zone. You know, where the whole world changes but you don't. In this case, it's like learning suddenly that a bunch of 4umers would indeed blow the brains of of a little girl if it helped to secure some of their own "liberties". I am really amazed that a number of people here take exception to my statement.
#13. To: MUDDOG (#6)
There was a Twilight Zone episode where a hillbilly died and he refused to go into heaven if it meant he had to leave his dog outside, but it turned out that that "heaven" was really hell, and because he didn't abandon his dog, he got to go into the real heaven.
#14. To: YertleTurtle (#13)
I've already said too much.
#15. To: MUDDOG (#14)
t was a memorable episode, as so many were.
#16. To: buckeye (#4)
#17. To: buckeye (#1)
I do think this is a false dilemma. I saw the thread where you and another poster were having a discussion about this in a different form (related to Obama).
#18. To: buckeye (#4)
It has two problems that I've been able to see: vague language, and some passages that appear to open loopholes to tyrants.
#19. To: Ferret Mike (#9)
An ethical man with that choice would demure and instead offer his life as a trade to save the Second Amendment instead of her if it meant more then life to him. It is the only honorable thing to do in that situation.
#20. To: Pinguinite (#17)
Certainly my beatings the past 2 days were for being a gun grabber, not an Obama supporter.
#21. To: YertleTurtle (#10)
I wouldn't shoot the girl, but if I could restore them by skining alive William Kristol, I would.
#22. To: Pinguinite (#0)
If I am elected president, I will shoot this girl and then the 2nd Amendment will be restored".
#23. To: Jethro Tull (#11)
OK, say we stop safeguarding the 2nd as you pose, what can we reasonably expect and from whom?
#24. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#12)
The peace at any cost and "lesser evil" crowd will be the death of humanity.
#25. To: Pinguinite (#23)
Does this mean you would shoot the girl?
#26. To: buckeye (#20)
I might have misunderstood, but I figured this was about support for any candidate who was in favor of draconian gun control,
#27. To: Pinguinite (#24)
No, for me it's not peace at any cost. The question here is the 2nd amendment at the cost of murder. Is it worth it?
#28. To: Pinguinite (#26)
#29. To: richard9151 (#22)
And what you are putting forth here is simply chosing the lessor of two evils..... it can never be done in good conscience. Stop voting and you stop validating THEIR system.
#30. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#16)
What is a 'well regulated militia?' anyway?
#31. To: Jethro Tull (#25)
#32. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#27)
Roll back the laws, so what? Within a few generations the same laws will be back on the books and then some and we'll be right back at the same point as right now.
#33. To: Pinguinite (#0)
For us to try to safeguard our 2nd Amendment rights at the expense of lives of innocents worldwide doesn't fly in my book.
#34. To: Critter (#33)
How does safeguarding our 2nd amendment rights effect anyone anywhere around the world?
#35. To: Pinguinite (#0)
(Edited)
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#36. To: Pinguinite (#34)
A presidential candidate runs on a platform fully respecting the 2nd Amendment. He promises to veto any and all bills that further restrict 2nd Amendment rights. He promises to stop prosecuting existing gun laws that violate the 2nd Amendment and pardon any past federal violations of unconstitutional gun laws.
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#37. To: Pinguinite (#0)
#38. To: X-15 (#37)
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#39. To: Pinguinite, all (#0)
#40. To: PSUSA (#39)
That has got to be the dumbest "hypothetical question" I have ever seen. NO ONE would blow out the brains of a little girl FOR ANY REASON! WTF???
#41. To: Pinguinite (#0)
I've got a hypothetical question for you. Suppose you were in a funny situation where you had the opportunity to reconstitute the 2nd Amendment, doing away with all 20,000 or so gun laws. The power was in your hands to make it so.
Lord Acton
#42. To: Pinguinite (#29)
Maybe you would say the "good" thing is to take the gun and shoot the candidate who made such a promise?
#43. To: Pinguinite, PSUSA (#40)
NO ONE would blow out the brains of a little girl FOR ANY REASON! WTF???
#44. To: richard9151 (#43)
Would you vote for someone who would guarentee your 2nd Amendment rights knowing that that someone would then kill countless children as a means of doing so?
#45. To: Pinguinite (#40)
There is one person here who defies your prediction.
.
.
.