|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
United States42251 Posts
On December 16 2012 04:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:
Just out of curiousity sc2superfan101, if you take the second amendment to mean all arms rather than just muskets etc then would you be in favour of local militia groups clubbing together to get some serious military hardware or do you draw the line somewhere? it's tough to say. I think any weapon which causes mass, indiscriminate damage (grenades, explosives, gasses, etc) should be outright banned. other than that, I think it should largely be left up to the states to determine which they will allow and which not (though I think all states must respect the second amendment).
Taking away their explosives and their grenades will give militias a significant tactical disadvantage if King George tries to impose his colonial authority upon them or if the Government declares a dictatorship. The militia must be a credible threat to the US army or else it serves no purpose.
|
On December 16 2012 04:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:29 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:23 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:13 Hrrrrm wrote:
Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training. I think that they were... Yeah? The fine folks who wrote the constitution including clauses for slavery probably knew about the upcoming automatic weapons...? are you making the assumption that they would have been categorically against the possession of automatic weapons by civilians if they had known about them? I believe that assumption is as completely baseless as my own, which is that they would have been for the possession of automatic weapons. it's impossible to say either way, because they didn't live long enough to tell us. I don't assume anything. You said that you think they meant (suggests activity) to allow automatic weapons. So clearly you don't assume either but you have knowledge that we don't. How did you acquire this knowledge, sire? I have no knowledge as to what they meant. (as far as I know, no one living does) but I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that at least some of them, if not most, would have supported owning automatic weapons. probably much like today, where some people support it and some don't.
I'm not sure talking about the constitution is too relevant then if we'll just bring it back to how sc2superfan feels about it today and his interpretation of what the founding fathers may or may not have felt like...
On December 16 2012 04:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:
Just out of curiousity sc2superfan101, if you take the second amendment to mean all arms rather than just muskets etc then would you be in favour of local militia groups clubbing together to get some serious military hardware or do you draw the line somewhere? it's tough to say. I think any weapon which causes mass, indiscriminate damage (grenades, explosives, gasses, etc) should be outright banned. other than that, I think it should largely be left up to the states to determine which they will allow and which not (though I think all states must respect the second amendment). Taking away their explosives and their grenades will give militias a significant tactical disadvantage if King George tries to impose his colonial authority upon them or if the Government declares a dictatorship. The militia must be a credible threat to the US army or else it serves no purpose.
Yeah, in the US, the military would eat any form of militia alive. Automatic weapons serve no purpose except they allow citizen to kill other citizen.
|
On December 16 2012 04:38 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:29 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:23 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:13 Hrrrrm wrote:
Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training. I think that they were... Yeah? The fine folks who wrote the constitution including clauses for slavery probably knew about the upcoming automatic weapons...? are you making the assumption that they would have been categorically against the possession of automatic weapons by civilians if they had known about them? I believe that assumption is as completely baseless as my own, which is that they would have been for the possession of automatic weapons. it's impossible to say either way, because they didn't live long enough to tell us. I don't assume anything. You said that you think they meant (suggests activity) to allow automatic weapons. So clearly you don't assume either but you have knowledge that we don't. How did you acquire this knowledge, sire? I have no knowledge as to what they meant. (as far as I know, no one living does) but I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that at least some of them, if not most, would have supported owning automatic weapons. probably much like today, where some people support it and some don't. I'm not sure talking about the constitution is too relevant then if we'll just bring it back to how sc2superfan feels about it today and his interpretation of what the founding fathers may or may not have been thought
did you read what I originally responded to? he said
"Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training"
implying that the founding fathers would never have allowed civilians to own and use such weapons. I happen to disagree with that position... so how is what I'm saying any less valid than what he is saying?
also: what else can we talk about, other than interpretations? the drafters didn't have the benefit of knowing what weapons would or wouldn't exist. we have to interpret their words and decide how they should be applied. unless you have some prior knowledge that we don't have? to quote you:
"How did you acquire this knowledge, sire?"
|
On December 16 2012 04:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:
Just out of curiousity sc2superfan101, if you take the second amendment to mean all arms rather than just muskets etc then would you be in favour of local militia groups clubbing together to get some serious military hardware or do you draw the line somewhere? it's tough to say. I think any weapon which causes mass, indiscriminate damage (grenades, explosives, gasses, etc) should be outright banned. other than that, I think it should largely be left up to the states to determine which they will allow and which not (though I think all states must respect the second amendment). Taking away their explosives and their grenades will give militias a significant tactical disadvantage if King George tries to impose his colonial authority upon them or if the Government declares a dictatorship. The militia must be a credible threat to the US army or else it serves no purpose.
Unfortunately, you can't tell the whackjobs on either side anything. I did my time as Infantry, and I know for a fact that every weapon me, friends, and family own, put together, wouldn't be enough to put a dent in a single Bradley or Abrams, let alone an F16.
The "Overthrow the evil tyranny" argument is a dead-end street for people with no ability for critical thought, who shouldn't be allowed within spitting distance of a gun, just as the "banning guns will stop all crime" argument coming from the other end of the spectrum.
Somewhere, in between polarized politics, and poorly thought out concepts from the insane civilians, the middle ground exists, the only question is whether we ever find it.
|
Thank you so much!!
This is exactly what the gun control debate needs. Cold hard facts in the form of statistics analyzed by experts in the field. No more endless talk about people's personal, biased views, or wishy washy anecdotal evidence that gets people nowhere. Its certainly nice to talk about in its own right, but if you actually want to find a meaningful conclusion about whether gun control is a good idea, then simply look at the these scientific review papers; at the very least its as close as you're going to get to an answer.
It doesn't matter how obvious or logical you think the relationship between guns and violence is. There have been many ideas that seemed intuitively obvious in the sciences, that have been proved wrong. Tentatively speaking, from the article ConGee gives, this is another example. The same thing can be found on Wikipedia's page summarizing gun control arguments. Basically, there is no real evidence that fewer guns equals less death (in general).
Just so everyone can immediately see the conclusion of the paper, I have retyped it below:
+ Show Spoiler +This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil - at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of the conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.
Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada's more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition:
"If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to "exonerate" handguns, but there it is - a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.
On December 16 2012 04:41 JingleHell wrote:
Unfortunately, you can't tell the whackjobs on either side anything. I did my time as Infantry, and I know for a fact that every weapon me, friends, and family own, put together, wouldn't be enough to put a dent in a single Bradley or Abrams, let alone an F16.
The "Overthrow the evil tyranny" argument is a dead-end street for people with no ability for critical thought, who shouldn't be allowed within spitting distance of a gun, just as the "banning guns will stop all crime" argument coming from the other end of the spectrum.
Somewhere, in between polarized politics, and poorly thought out concepts from the insane civilians, the middle ground exists, the only question is whether we ever find it.
Don't wanna make my post too long, but I think you can see in Syria that the people, even with simple weapons, can overcome an army, even if they have jet aircraft and tanks...and they did it without any outside assistance (not in terms of having their own tanks, etc.). I don't think you should underestimate what a well-armed population can do.
I don't think anyone is going to fire their M16 at a tank like a fool (lol), but improvised explosives (and RPGs) could. And the army isn't going to fight with just tanks, its going to need foot soldiers, so in that regard obviously conventional weapons are important (perhaps they can do raids on certain military outposts, and steal some more powerful weapons, or materials to make weapons? I'm not sure). The point is, having weapons can play an important, pivotal *role* in resisting government forces.
|
On December 16 2012 04:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:38 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:29 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:23 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:13 Hrrrrm wrote:
Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training. I think that they were... Yeah? The fine folks who wrote the constitution including clauses for slavery probably knew about the upcoming automatic weapons...? are you making the assumption that they would have been categorically against the possession of automatic weapons by civilians if they had known about them? I believe that assumption is as completely baseless as my own, which is that they would have been for the possession of automatic weapons. it's impossible to say either way, because they didn't live long enough to tell us. I don't assume anything. You said that you think they meant (suggests activity) to allow automatic weapons. So clearly you don't assume either but you have knowledge that we don't. How did you acquire this knowledge, sire? I have no knowledge as to what they meant. (as far as I know, no one living does) but I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that at least some of them, if not most, would have supported owning automatic weapons. probably much like today, where some people support it and some don't. I'm not sure talking about the constitution is too relevant then if we'll just bring it back to how sc2superfan feels about it today and his interpretation of what the founding fathers may or may not have been thought did you read what I originally responded to? he said "Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training" implying that the founding fathers would never have allowed civilians to own and use such weapons. I happen to disagree with that position... so how is what I'm saying any less valid than what he is saying?
Well you took a clear position about the feelings of the founding fathers about an hypothetical scenario, and then talked about I was assuming something. Either way we're contemporary guys giving our opinions and although you've backed off, you started off by pretending to have knowledge. Were you buddies with Jefferson? 
|
On December 16 2012 04:43 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:38 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:29 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:23 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:13 Hrrrrm wrote:
Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training. I think that they were... Yeah? The fine folks who wrote the constitution including clauses for slavery probably knew about the upcoming automatic weapons...? are you making the assumption that they would have been categorically against the possession of automatic weapons by civilians if they had known about them? I believe that assumption is as completely baseless as my own, which is that they would have been for the possession of automatic weapons. it's impossible to say either way, because they didn't live long enough to tell us. I don't assume anything. You said that you think they meant (suggests activity) to allow automatic weapons. So clearly you don't assume either but you have knowledge that we don't. How did you acquire this knowledge, sire? I have no knowledge as to what they meant. (as far as I know, no one living does) but I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that at least some of them, if not most, would have supported owning automatic weapons. probably much like today, where some people support it and some don't. I'm not sure talking about the constitution is too relevant then if we'll just bring it back to how sc2superfan feels about it today and his interpretation of what the founding fathers may or may not have been thought did you read what I originally responded to? he said "Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training" implying that the founding fathers would never have allowed civilians to own and use such weapons. I happen to disagree with that position... so how is what I'm saying any less valid than what he is saying? Well you took a clear position about the feelings of the founding fathers about an hypothetical scenario, and then talked about I was assuming something. Either way we're contemporary guys giving our opinions and although you've backed off, you started off by pretending to have knowledge. Were you buddies with Jefferson?
"I think they were" does not imply any form of knowledge, nor could it possibly be taken as a statement of knowledge.
his assumption was that they wouldn't be for it (possession of automatics by civilians). I said that my personal assumption is that they would be for it. you implied that they wouldn't be, so I asked if you shared his assumption.
|
1019 Posts
On December 16 2012 04:41 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:37 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2012 04:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:
Just out of curiousity sc2superfan101, if you take the second amendment to mean all arms rather than just muskets etc then would you be in favour of local militia groups clubbing together to get some serious military hardware or do you draw the line somewhere? it's tough to say. I think any weapon which causes mass, indiscriminate damage (grenades, explosives, gasses, etc) should be outright banned. other than that, I think it should largely be left up to the states to determine which they will allow and which not (though I think all states must respect the second amendment). Taking away their explosives and their grenades will give militias a significant tactical disadvantage if King George tries to impose his colonial authority upon them or if the Government declares a dictatorship. The militia must be a credible threat to the US army or else it serves no purpose. Unfortunately, you can't tell the whackjobs on either side anything. I did my time as Infantry, and I know for a fact that every weapon me, friends, and family own, put together, wouldn't be enough to put a dent in a single Bradley or Abrams, let alone an F16. The "Overthrow the evil tyranny" argument is a dead-end street for people with no ability for critical thought, who shouldn't be allowed within spitting distance of a gun, just as the "banning guns will stop all crime" argument coming from the other end of the spectrum. Somewhere, in between polarized politics, and poorly thought out concepts from the insane civilians, the middle ground exists, the only question is whether we ever find it.
Yes this is true. You'll find that many NRA members and gun rights supporters are those that have extremely deep mistrust of the federal government. So having an assault rifle gives them the impression that they somehow will have the power to resist an imaginary enemy.
|
United States42251 Posts
On December 16 2012 04:43 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:38 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:29 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:23 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:13 Hrrrrm wrote:
Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training. I think that they were... Yeah? The fine folks who wrote the constitution including clauses for slavery probably knew about the upcoming automatic weapons...? are you making the assumption that they would have been categorically against the possession of automatic weapons by civilians if they had known about them? I believe that assumption is as completely baseless as my own, which is that they would have been for the possession of automatic weapons. it's impossible to say either way, because they didn't live long enough to tell us. I don't assume anything. You said that you think they meant (suggests activity) to allow automatic weapons. So clearly you don't assume either but you have knowledge that we don't. How did you acquire this knowledge, sire? I have no knowledge as to what they meant. (as far as I know, no one living does) but I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that at least some of them, if not most, would have supported owning automatic weapons. probably much like today, where some people support it and some don't. I'm not sure talking about the constitution is too relevant then if we'll just bring it back to how sc2superfan feels about it today and his interpretation of what the founding fathers may or may not have been thought did you read what I originally responded to? he said "Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training" implying that the founding fathers would never have allowed civilians to own and use such weapons. I happen to disagree with that position... so how is what I'm saying any less valid than what he is saying? Well you took a clear position about the feelings of the founding fathers about an hypothetical scenario, and then talked about I was assuming something. Either way we're contemporary guys giving our opinions and although you've backed off, you started off by pretending to have knowledge. Were you buddies with Jefferson?
He said he thinks and then he said both assumptions (for and against) were baseless, you have very much misrepresented what he said.
|
On December 16 2012 04:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:43 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:38 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:29 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:23 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:13 Hrrrrm wrote:
Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training. I think that they were... Yeah? The fine folks who wrote the constitution including clauses for slavery probably knew about the upcoming automatic weapons...? are you making the assumption that they would have been categorically against the possession of automatic weapons by civilians if they had known about them? I believe that assumption is as completely baseless as my own, which is that they would have been for the possession of automatic weapons. it's impossible to say either way, because they didn't live long enough to tell us. I don't assume anything. You said that you think they meant (suggests activity) to allow automatic weapons. So clearly you don't assume either but you have knowledge that we don't. How did you acquire this knowledge, sire? I have no knowledge as to what they meant. (as far as I know, no one living does) but I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that at least some of them, if not most, would have supported owning automatic weapons. probably much like today, where some people support it and some don't. I'm not sure talking about the constitution is too relevant then if we'll just bring it back to how sc2superfan feels about it today and his interpretation of what the founding fathers may or may not have been thought did you read what I originally responded to? he said "Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training" implying that the founding fathers would never have allowed civilians to own and use such weapons. I happen to disagree with that position... so how is what I'm saying any less valid than what he is saying? Well you took a clear position about the feelings of the founding fathers about an hypothetical scenario, and then talked about I was assuming something. Either way we're contemporary guys giving our opinions and although you've backed off, you started off by pretending to have knowledge. Were you buddies with Jefferson? He said he thinks and then he said both assumptions (for and against) were baseless, you have very much misrepresented what he said.
->
On December 16 2012 04:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:13 Hrrrrm wrote:
Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training. I think that they were...
He makes an assumption, but THEN backpeddles, saying his assumption is baseless yet better.
|
Its not a question that will be settled peacefully. There are lobbyists slash mafiosos on capitol hill right now paying anyone and everyone off to support guns and even easier access to them. This is their job, which will not change unless we kill them all or throw them in jail. Sounds sad, but it is the only way to regain our democracy back.
BECAUSE WE THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT MORE GUNS IN AMERICA.
|
On December 16 2012 04:52 cameler1989 wrote:
Its not a question that will be settled peacefully. There are lobbyists slash mafiosos on capitol hill right now paying anyone and everyone off to support guns and even easier access to them. This is their job, which will not change unless we kill them all or throw them in jail. Sounds sad, but it is the only way to regain our democracy back.
BECAUSE WE THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT MORE GUNS IN AMERICA.
Ser you's crazy D:
|
On December 16 2012 04:42 radscorpion9 wrote:
Don't wanna make my post too long, but I think you can see in Syria that the people, even with simple weapons, can overcome an army, even if they have jet aircraft and tanks...and they did it without any outside assistance. I don't think you should underestimate what a well-armed population can do.
I don't think anyone is going to fire their M16 at a tank like a fool (lol), but improvised explosives (and RPGs) could. And the army isn't going to fight with just tanks, its going to need foot soldiers, so in that regard obviously conventional weapons are important.
Dude, you're not talking about the US Army. No offense to the Syrians, and not to undermine what they accomplished, but it takes some badass shit to take down our equipment. I've used it, I've seen it in action. It's one thing to point to isolated incidents but a combination of numbers and technology are going to make it really challenging to do more than wage a guerilla war, which would NOT defeat the armed forces in and of itself.
Even if there was a split within the military, and even if they somehow broke away with all the logistical elements in place to fight a war, both of which are a huge stretch, they'd be busy fighting their opposite number that didn't break away.
There's a reason that every war the US has been involved in recently has become a matter of guerilla tactics. If you try to directly engage, even on the small unit tactical level, the training and equipment make for a big difference. I'm not saying civilians couldn't win some engagements, but a war, hell no.
Let's leave all that behind, and discuss the reality, which is recreational and/or self defense, at which point it's obvious that the data is somewhat inconclusive for the US, but either way, the system itself needs an overhaul to actually protect anyone.
Just the fact that Chicago hasn't managed to make itself a safer place should demonstrate that practically, there's more to it than strict gun control with this level of saturation, just as it's very obvious that it's too easy to get a gun that's off the books.
|
On December 16 2012 04:41 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:37 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2012 04:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:
Just out of curiousity sc2superfan101, if you take the second amendment to mean all arms rather than just muskets etc then would you be in favour of local militia groups clubbing together to get some serious military hardware or do you draw the line somewhere? it's tough to say. I think any weapon which causes mass, indiscriminate damage (grenades, explosives, gasses, etc) should be outright banned. other than that, I think it should largely be left up to the states to determine which they will allow and which not (though I think all states must respect the second amendment). Taking away their explosives and their grenades will give militias a significant tactical disadvantage if King George tries to impose his colonial authority upon them or if the Government declares a dictatorship. The militia must be a credible threat to the US army or else it serves no purpose. Unfortunately, you can't tell the whackjobs on either side anything. I did my time as Infantry, and I know for a fact that every weapon me, friends, and family own, put together, wouldn't be enough to put a dent in a single Bradley or Abrams, let alone an F16. The "Overthrow the evil tyranny" argument is a dead-end street for people with no ability for critical thought, who shouldn't be allowed within spitting distance of a gun, just as the "banning guns will stop all crime" argument coming from the other end of the spectrum. Somewhere, in between polarized politics, and poorly thought out concepts from the insane civilians, the middle ground exists, the only question is whether we ever find it.
It doesn't have to be our own government. Take a look at the Vietnam. Just because your enemy has superior firepower doesn't mean you can't hold your ground and fight back. If mainland United States were ever to be invaded having an armed populace would be beneficial.
Aside from that, it's tragedies like this when we give up our rights without question. 9/11 and the Patriot Act anyone?
|
On December 16 2012 04:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:38 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:29 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:23 Djzapz wrote:On December 16 2012 04:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:13 Hrrrrm wrote:
Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training. I think that they were... Yeah? The fine folks who wrote the constitution including clauses for slavery probably knew about the upcoming automatic weapons...? are you making the assumption that they would have been categorically against the possession of automatic weapons by civilians if they had known about them? I believe that assumption is as completely baseless as my own, which is that they would have been for the possession of automatic weapons. it's impossible to say either way, because they didn't live long enough to tell us. I don't assume anything. You said that you think they meant (suggests activity) to allow automatic weapons. So clearly you don't assume either but you have knowledge that we don't. How did you acquire this knowledge, sire? I have no knowledge as to what they meant. (as far as I know, no one living does) but I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that at least some of them, if not most, would have supported owning automatic weapons. probably much like today, where some people support it and some don't. I'm not sure talking about the constitution is too relevant then if we'll just bring it back to how sc2superfan feels about it today and his interpretation of what the founding fathers may or may not have been thought did you read what I originally responded to? he said "Civilians were never meant to fire as many rounds that are capable to be fired now with absolutely no training" implying that the founding fathers would never have allowed civilians to own and use such weapons. I happen to disagree with that position... so how is what I'm saying any less valid than what he is saying? also: what else can we talk about, other than interpretations? the drafters didn't have the benefit of knowing what weapons would or wouldn't exist. we have to interpret their words and decide how they should be applied. unless you have some prior knowledge that we don't have? to quote you: "How did you acquire this knowledge, sire?"
Or, we could stop being so archaic and update the Constitution instead of treating it like the Bible. The thing is outdated and completely ill-equipped to deal with modern technological and ethical issues.
|
On December 16 2012 04:52 cameler1989 wrote:
Its not a question that will be settled peacefully. There are lobbyists slash mafiosos on capitol hill right now paying anyone and everyone off to support guns and even easier access to them. This is their job, which will not change unless we kill them all or throw them in jail. Sounds sad, but it is the only way to regain our democracy back.
BECAUSE WE THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT MORE GUNS IN AMERICA.
haha XD. I can understand your emotional reaction. But proposing that we should kill people to solve the problem sounds pretty extreme, and would only further entrench the views of those against you (see! we need guns to defend ourselves!). Just so that you don't appear hypocritical, you would use throwing knives and crossbows right?
|
On December 16 2012 04:56 Donger wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:41 JingleHell wrote:On December 16 2012 04:37 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2012 04:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 16 2012 04:28 KwarK wrote:
Just out of curiousity sc2superfan101, if you take the second amendment to mean all arms rather than just muskets etc then would you be in favour of local militia groups clubbing together to get some serious military hardware or do you draw the line somewhere? it's tough to say. I think any weapon which causes mass, indiscriminate damage (grenades, explosives, gasses, etc) should be outright banned. other than that, I think it should largely be left up to the states to determine which they will allow and which not (though I think all states must respect the second amendment). Taking away their explosives and their grenades will give militias a significant tactical disadvantage if King George tries to impose his colonial authority upon them or if the Government declares a dictatorship. The militia must be a credible threat to the US army or else it serves no purpose. Unfortunately, you can't tell the whackjobs on either side anything. I did my time as Infantry, and I know for a fact that every weapon me, friends, and family own, put together, wouldn't be enough to put a dent in a single Bradley or Abrams, let alone an F16. The "Overthrow the evil tyranny" argument is a dead-end street for people with no ability for critical thought, who shouldn't be allowed within spitting distance of a gun, just as the "banning guns will stop all crime" argument coming from the other end of the spectrum. Somewhere, in between polarized politics, and poorly thought out concepts from the insane civilians, the middle ground exists, the only question is whether we ever find it. It doesn't have to be our own government. Take a look at the Vietnam. Just because your enemy has superior firepower doesn't mean you can't hold your ground and fight back. If mainland United States were ever to be invaded having an armed populace would be beneficial. Aside from that, it's tragedies like this when we give up our rights without question. 9/11 and the Patriot Act anyone?
Sure, though if you're legitimately afraid of homeland invasion you should have mandatory military training for citizens as some countries (like my own) have, so they can actually be proficient. We also don't get to hold onto our own weapons.
|
Why isn't there a pool in this thread? Should be in the first post. How many americans wants gun/no gun control, and how many non-americans wants gun/non gun control.
I'd be willing to bet that the non americans who wants gun control would far outweight, in percentage, the americans who doesn't.
|
On December 16 2012 04:56 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 04:42 radscorpion9 wrote:
Don't wanna make my post too long, but I think you can see in Syria that the people, even with simple weapons, can overcome an army, even if they have jet aircraft and tanks...and they did it without any outside assistance. I don't think you should underestimate what a well-armed population can do.
I don't think anyone is going to fire their M16 at a tank like a fool (lol), but improvised explosives (and RPGs) could. And the army isn't going to fight with just tanks, its going to need foot soldiers, so in that regard obviously conventional weapons are important.
Dude, you're not talking about the US Army. No offense to the Syrians, and not to undermine what they accomplished, but it takes some badass shit to take down our equipment. I've used it, I've seen it in action. It's one thing to point to isolated incidents but a combination of numbers and technology are going to make it really challenging to do more than wage a guerilla war, which would NOT defeat the armed forces in and of itself. Even if there was a split within the military, and even if they somehow broke away with all the logistical elements in place to fight a war, both of which are a huge stretch, they'd be busy fighting their opposite number that didn't break away. There's a reason that every war the US has been involved in recently has become a matter of guerilla tactics. If you try to directly engage, even on the small unit tactical level, the training and equipment make for a big difference. I'm not saying civilians couldn't win some engagements, but a war, hell no. Let's leave all that behind, and discuss the reality, which is recreational and/or self defense, at which point it's obvious that the data is somewhat inconclusive for the US, but either way, the system itself needs an overhaul to actually protect anyone. Just the fact that Chicago hasn't managed to make itself a safer place should demonstrate that practically, there's more to it than strict gun control with this level of saturation, just as it's very obvious that it's too easy to get a gun that's off the books.
Let's be fair, all the gun controls in the world can't stop someone from taking 30 minutes to drive over the border and buy a gun in a neighboring state with lax gun control laws and carry it over. This has to be done nation wide or not at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
