|
On June 28 2008 02:07 Kwark wrote:
Basically, a legally armed militia is a threat only to an invading power who is reluctant to hit you very hard and is armed with technology that would put WW2 powers to shame. And when you're relying more on the good will of your invaders than upon your own threat for victory it's rather less impressive. Of course an illegally armed militia, say with main battle tanks and a smattering of artillery would be far easier to justify for defence. Throw in a few helicopter gunships and a few years military training and I'd think twice before invading. But there again they already did that. It's called the army and you have one.
In short, there is absolutely no defence justification for a militia.
Look, I know you're mad that the last time we fought your army lost to our militia, but man, you gotta quit being salty at some point.
|
On June 28 2008 02:16 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2008 01:34 Kwark wrote:
It's one of the ironies of the American Revolution. It was not about taxation, nor about tyranny but rather about a constitutional quirk in which the childs attempt to mimic the father forced them into conflict. I don't think it was that simple. There were four great profits in the American Revolution: 1) no more drain of taxation to be spent outside of America 2) repudiation of debts (esp. to the Crown) 3) "manifest destiny" - the freedom of powerful Americans to slice up the rest of the continent for themselves 4) security of human property As I understand it, the British government was in a state of financial trouble and moral upheaval. Taxes were likely to rise, slaves were in danger of being freed, debts were being called in, and a moratorium was placed on expansion into indian territory (less out of moral concerns or respect for treaties, and more out of fear of the cost of a frontier war). People whose families had gone to America full of ambition and dreams of unlimited scope were being reigned in and harnessed up to help solve the problems of the Motherland, and to respect its changing moral standards (which were gradually shifting against colonialism and slavery). They weren't willing to accept that. They tried to solve it by gaining more government influence, and were stubbornly treated as mere subordinates. Since neither side would give way, rebellion followed.
FREEDOM OF AND FROM RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT
|
Mind you, those were the same thing back then.
|
Lol u watch the US reads the constitution like some kind of godly scripture they're bound to get stagnant and wither away like religion.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 28 2008 01:10 rpf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2008 22:24 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2008 17:10 rpf wrote:On June 27 2008 14:06 Jibba wrote:
Not to mention the issue of gun shows, and not the totally awesome kind. What issue? I see you've fallen victim to rumors spread intentionally by the Brady Campaign. There is no "gun show issue." Moron. Dense moron. It was a reason to post the Todd. And private sales do occur at gun shows, classified, etc. They are a problem. Wrong.  Oh, how I love ignorance. Private sales are LEGAL. /palmface
Alright, you really are a stupid mother fucker. I've been pretty courteous up to this point, but every time I make a post your ridiculously paranoid brain decides to remove itself from all bases of logic and reply with some inane piece of drivel that has absolutely nothing to do with my post.
Everything you post is idiotic, and even if I agreed with your stance on guns, I would think that you are a fool. If I loved guns as much as you do, I would still try to disassociate myself from you in real life. I'm dead serious. Rpf, you are not an intelligent person.
Can I make that any clearer? From the bottom of my heart, I believe that.
My post contained absolutely nothing about the current legality of private gun sales. My post concerned the fact that they exist, and makes the implication that they should not exist. If you don't think the private transfer of a weapon should be closely regulated, then you are an even bigger moron and nuisance than I and everyone else on TL.net pegged you for.
|
I'd rather have a club. I always enjoyed the thought of being a caveman...
This is a real "meh" for me as well (3rd comment). It isn't like it really makes a big diference, because you don't have a chance to _use_ the gun very often anyways.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 28 2008 00:29 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2008 00:18 Jibba wrote:On June 28 2008 00:08 Funchucks wrote:On June 27 2008 22:23 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2008 14:56 Funchucks wrote:On June 27 2008 14:06 Jibba wrote:
The underlying problems in D.C. and other super heavy crime cities need to be addresses, but overall throughout the country I think there's a lot less bad guys than people believe and I still don't see how semi-automatic weapons fit into the mix.
If you're specifically against semi-automatic pistols Sounds good to me.
If you're specifically against semi-automatic rifles or shotguns, you're against very conventional and common hunting equipment.
That too. In other words, "I didn't read any of it, am not interested in hearing any facts that will make anything I said seem foolish, and will continue to hold views based on ignorance." I read it all. Somehow "conventional hunting equipment" doesn't make a compelling argument. First of all, you're dodging the "semi-automatic pistol = safer than the alternative" argument. It's safer in handling and maintenance. The alternatives are less deadly weapons, however.
Secondly, you're not addressing the "semi-automatic rifles and shotguns have only a slightly faster rate of fire than the alternative" argument. You apparently have no trouble advocating the confiscation of a whole category of legitimate sporting equipment which is very rarely used in crime and does not make criminals significantly more effective or dangerous.
I'm also well aware that hunting rifles are rarely used in serious crimes, which is why Canada can have a large quantity of guns with low crime rates. I just don't think people should have high calibre, laser sighted rifles.
How about this. We replace all hand guns with stun guns and tasers, then we implement the city wide CCTV thing that the other thread talked about. Gang wars will be less deadly and the leaked footage will be the funniest thing on Youtube.
|
On June 28 2008 07:46 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2008 01:10 rpf wrote:On June 27 2008 22:24 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2008 17:10 rpf wrote:On June 27 2008 14:06 Jibba wrote:
Not to mention the issue of gun shows, and not the totally awesome kind. What issue? I see you've fallen victim to rumors spread intentionally by the Brady Campaign. There is no "gun show issue." Moron. Dense moron. It was a reason to post the Todd. And private sales do occur at gun shows, classified, etc. They are a problem. Wrong. Oh, how I love ignorance. Private sales are LEGAL. /palmface Alright, you really are a stupid mother fucker. I've been pretty courteous up to this point, but every time I make a post your ridiculously paranoid brain decides to remove itself from all bases of logic and reply with some inane piece of drivel that has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Everything you post is idiotic, and even if I agreed with your stance on guns, I would think that you are a fool. If I loved guns as much as you do, I would still try to disassociate myself from you in real life. I'm dead serious. Rpf, you are not an intelligent person.Can I make that any clearer? From the bottom of my heart, I believe that. My post contained absolutely nothing about the current legality of private gun sales. My post concerned the fact that they exist, and makes the implication that they should not exist. If you don't think the private transfer of a weapon should be closely regulated, then you are an even bigger moron and nuisance than I and everyone else on TL.net pegged you for.
hahahahahahah
Jibba, i love you
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On June 28 2008 07:46 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2008 01:10 rpf wrote:On June 27 2008 22:24 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2008 17:10 rpf wrote:On June 27 2008 14:06 Jibba wrote:
Not to mention the issue of gun shows, and not the totally awesome kind. What issue? I see you've fallen victim to rumors spread intentionally by the Brady Campaign. There is no "gun show issue." Moron. Dense moron. It was a reason to post the Todd. And private sales do occur at gun shows, classified, etc. They are a problem. Wrong. Oh, how I love ignorance. Private sales are LEGAL. /palmface Alright, you really are a stupid mother fucker. I've been pretty courteous up to this point, but every time I make a post your ridiculously paranoid brain decides to remove itself from all bases of logic and reply with some inane piece of drivel that has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Everything you post is idiotic, and even if I agreed with your stance on guns, I would think that you are a fool. If I loved guns as much as you do, I would still try to disassociate myself from you in real life. I'm dead serious. Rpf, you are not an intelligent person.Can I make that any clearer? From the bottom of my heart, I believe that. My post contained absolutely nothing about the current legality of private gun sales. My post concerned the fact that they exist, and makes the implication that they should not exist. If you don't think the private transfer of a weapon should be closely regulated, then you are an even bigger moron and nuisance than I and everyone else on TL.net pegged you for.
raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaped
|
eh. don't think the founders really foresaw the issues with this amendment. seems to me that it's meant to protect militias, hence the part about, you know, the militias. They didn't word it well enough though, and now it can be interpreted as giving everyone the right to own a gun, whether they're part of a state militia or not.
in any event, got to hope the next justice retires when a democrat is president I guess.
|
rpf is stupid and if he whines about other people's ignorance on the matter he's just highlighting his own ignorance...if you knew anything whatsoever about the time the bill of rights was instituted, you wouldn't say something as stupid as this:
Frankly, I'm glad that the Justices can read. It's quite hard, in my opinion, to misunderstand "[T]he right of the people shall not be infringed."
I'm just assuming you haven't taken college USA History 1 yet/AP USA history in high school
|
On June 28 2008 09:00 talismania wrote:
eh. don't think the founders really foresaw the issues with this amendment. seems to me that it's meant to protect militias, hence the part about, you know, the militias. They didn't word it well enough though, and now it can be interpreted as giving everyone the right to own a gun, whether they're part of a state militia or not.
You do not know what you're talking about.
I'll let a co-author of the amendment speak for himself:
George Mason during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788 said:
I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
|
The people who wrote the Constitution held obviously different viewpoints and that's why it's in contention...just because you can quote Mason saying that doesn't mean anything, really.
The Federalists and the Republicans would have disagreed strongly over arming the "whole people,"
|
On June 28 2008 09:22 EnergyTraction wrote:
The people who wrote the Constitution held obviously different viewpoints and that's why it's in contention...just because you can quote Mason saying that doesn't mean anything, really.
The Federalists and the Republicans would have disagreed strongly over arming the "whole people,"
The people who wrote the second amendment did not disagree about its meaning.
|
On June 28 2008 01:34 Kwark wrote:It's one of the ironies of the American Revolution. It was not about taxation, nor about tyranny but rather about a constitutional quirk in which the childs attempt to mimic the father forced them into conflict.
Actually it was about taxation, because William Pitt did everything in his power to win the Seven Years War, which included urging on the colonists against France while assuring them they wouldn't be taxed for their efforts. Then Pitt was ousted and the old policy was brought back and the colonists were livid. They also believed themselves to be British citizens, so from this perspective its easy to see why they would want a say over who was calling the shots.
And I think that more than a few revolutionaries would be amused that people still exist who call them children trying to emulate the British...
|
On June 28 2008 08:07 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2008 00:29 Funchucks wrote:On June 28 2008 00:18 Jibba wrote:On June 28 2008 00:08 Funchucks wrote:On June 27 2008 22:23 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2008 14:56 Funchucks wrote:On June 27 2008 14:06 Jibba wrote:
The underlying problems in D.C. and other super heavy crime cities need to be addresses, but overall throughout the country I think there's a lot less bad guys than people believe and I still don't see how semi-automatic weapons fit into the mix.
If you're specifically against semi-automatic pistols Sounds good to me.
If you're specifically against semi-automatic rifles or shotguns, you're against very conventional and common hunting equipment.
That too. In other words, "I didn't read any of it, am not interested in hearing any facts that will make anything I said seem foolish, and will continue to hold views based on ignorance." I read it all. Somehow "conventional hunting equipment" doesn't make a compelling argument. First of all, you're dodging the "semi-automatic pistol = safer than the alternative" argument. It's safer in handling and maintenance. The alternatives are less deadly weapons, however.
This is silly. The point of a sidearm is to be a deadly weapon.
Revolvers are lower-priced and more reliable at lower price points. There are models that take larger and more powerful rounds than any semi-automatic pistol.
The only thing that would make semi-automatic pistols "more deadly" is the larger ammunition capacity. By the same token, this makes the semi-automatic a more effective defense, especially against criminals who attack in gangs.
Limited ammunition could discourage the citizen from firing warning shots, making his behavior more deadly.
Revolvers and semi-automatic pistols each have their advantages and disadvantages. If there is going to be a concealed carry law, then the armed citizen should choose his preferred weapon. Restricting him to one or the other is not logically consistent.
Show nested quote +Secondly, you're not addressing the "semi-automatic rifles and shotguns have only a slightly faster rate of fire than the alternative" argument. You apparently have no trouble advocating the confiscation of a whole category of legitimate sporting equipment which is very rarely used in crime and does not make criminals significantly more effective or dangerous. I'm also well aware that hunting rifles are rarely used in serious crimes, which is why Canada can have a large quantity of guns with low crime rates. I just don't think people should have high calibre, laser sighted rifles.
This has nothing at all to do with "semi-automatic".
I do think anyone who wants to purchase a high caliber, laser-sighted rifle shouldn't be allowed to have any guns or breed and pass on his defective genes.
|
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Guns just look cool and sound cool, and make you look cool when you hold one.
I have a dream. A dream that one day, children will be able to point at each other with awesome, real guns, in total safety, their parents relaxed in the knowledge that ammunition could not possibly be available.
Support ammunition control legislation, and my proposed "Bullets for Guns" trade-in program.
Together we can put an end to bullet violence!
|
United States24765 Posts
On June 28 2008 09:55 Funchucks wrote:
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Guns just look cool and sound cool, and make you look cool when you hold one.
I have a dream. A dream that one day, children will be able to point at each other with awesome, real guns, in total safety, their parents relaxed in the knowledge that ammunition could not possibly be available.
Support ammunition control legislation, and my proposed "Bullets for Guns" trade-in program.
Together we can put an end to bullet violence!
Haha cute perhaps, but if we interpret this at face value (for some reason I can't even think of) then the bolded statement is misleading since guns are generally necessary for bullets to kill people. Neither plays a more important role than the other, and a gun can still kill someone even unloaded... good luck doing that with a bullet :p
|
I wish we could all just put aside the violence of guns and crime, it is simple enough to protect oneself.
On June 27 2008 11:39 TrainRape wrote:
I believe guns are unnecessary. I’ve lived in the District for over 5 years and have successfully defended my home from armed intruders with a Samurai sword on two separate occasions. Throwing stars and nun-chucks are also very effective against guns. If you practice two to three hours a day and are fearless, you will not fail.
|
I'm going to preface my argument for this thread by saying that I'm rather apathetic on the topic of gun control. I think that pro-control people make a lot of dishonest arguments, especially those about having an armed populace being useless against a tyrannical state with a modern military. However anti-gun-control folks also are horribly dishonest when it comes to crime. They immediately jump to the "protect yourself" argument, completely ignoring the statistical reality that crime gets *worse*, not better, when you add a whole bunch of guns to the equation. This is true of street crime, but even more so in domestic violence. Domestic violence involving a gun is far far more likely to end in the death of the abused. So overall, I try to avoid the topic of gun control in itself.
However. I don't really understand the obsession with the constitution. Maybe it's not such an amazing flawless document? The constitution, written 300 years ago, was formed taking into account a society that no longer exists. This nation was founded on the idea that all white-christian-land-owning-males are equal and deserve a fair say in government. At the end of the day, an awful lot of the constitution is vague. Trying to carefully analyze it and understand the "true meaning" of how it is written is exactly like trying to decipher the bible. Multiple people will look at it differently.
And really. The constitution is OLD. Should we really base every aspect of our government over word-for-word interpretations? Maybe it needs a little updating?
For example: There's a horrifying case that just got thrown back to lower courts because of an absurd interpretation of the 6th amendment. That amendment states that those accused in criminal courts have a right to a fair trial, and to face their accused. The 6th amendment is short, and in a lot of ways, horribly vague.
+ Show Spoiler +
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
How the case got thrown out: -
A woman makes multiple calls to police, saying that her boyfriend has been abusing her, and that she is afraid that he will seriously hurt her. -
Police take note of all calls, and log them in whatever magical device the police use for such things. However, they make no attempt to actually intervene.
-The woman's boyfriend shoots her 6 times in the back while she is asleep. (He later claims it was self defense)
-In court, ALL previous evidence that he may have been abusing her are considered void. Because she isn't there to testify in court. BECAUSE SHE'S FUCKING DEAD.
A literal interpretation of the 6th amendment leads to the case getting thrown out. Because his accuser, who is also the victim, is not there to testify against him. A man is going to get away with murder because we looked a little too closely at the constitution.
It's not flawless doctrine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
