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.
On January 11 2013 23:12 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I don't understand why people are so squeamish. Don't kill the poor burglar, he's not out to kill you? Seriously? Why would you even care? That level of empathy for someone you don't even know, and whose first action against you is one of aggression, is simply unnatural and worthy of ridicule. This modern age is far too soft.
I completely agree, this day in age people are too sensitive. I have even seen people suggest filming the intruder for insurance, or using a baseball bat (which is somewhat reasonable), which is unheard of. if an intruder is in MY home, he is going to be shot, plain and simple. I'm not taking the chance of having anyone in my family (future wife, kids, myself etc) in danger, regardless if he has a firearm or not. If he is desperate enough to break into a home, he most likely could be desperate enough to be violent, and I'm NOT taking that chance.
Do you believe that if someone breaks into a house and is caught in the act by the police that they deserve to be maimed or executed as a punishment?
if the police catch a burglar in the act in a home, which would be somewhat rare, no, the person shouldn't be executed. the person should be executed if that robber killed someone that was living in that home, yes.
however, I'm realistic and I know police won't arrive in my home under 5 minutes, increasing the chance of a violent incident. what is an alternative? run out the backdoor like cowards and let them take my hard earned belongings? let them kill my wife/kids/myself? sure I can attack him with a baseball bat, but I'm not going to take any chance if he does have a firearm.
There are about 1-2 million break ins in the US. You describe yourself as a realistic person but the situation you described is completely out of complete paranoia and sheer terror. There are many ways to protect your family if you feel so threatened from criminals breaking in that don't include guns. There are many risky and dangerous environments in our world, but that doesn't mean we need to fight it with more violence.
I respect the choices of holding a fire arm in your possession, but we should put stricter limits on what exactly is available for the public use.
On January 11 2013 23:12 smokeyhoodoo wrote: I don't understand why people are so squeamish. Don't kill the poor burglar, he's not out to kill you? Seriously? Why would you even care? That level of empathy for someone you don't even know, and whose first action against you is one of aggression, is simply unnatural and worthy of ridicule. This modern age is far too soft.
I completely agree, this day in age people are too sensitive. I have even seen people suggest filming the intruder for insurance, or using a baseball bat (which is somewhat reasonable), which is unheard of. if an intruder is in MY home, he is going to be shot, plain and simple. I'm not taking the chance of having anyone in my family (future wife, kids, myself etc) in danger, regardless if he has a firearm or not. If he is desperate enough to break into a home, he most likely could be desperate enough to be violent, and I'm NOT taking that chance.
Do you believe that if someone breaks into a house and is caught in the act by the police that they deserve to be maimed or executed as a punishment?
if the police catch a burglar in the act in a home, which would be somewhat rare, no, the person shouldn't be executed. the person should be executed if that robber killed someone that was living in that home, yes.
however, I'm realistic and I know police won't arrive in my home under 5 minutes, increasing the chance of a violent incident. what is an alternative? run out the backdoor like cowards and let them take my hard earned belongings? let them kill my wife/kids/myself? sure I can attack him with a baseball bat, but I'm not going to take any chance if he does have a firearm.
There are about 1-2 million break ins in the US. You describe yourself as a realistic person but the situation you described is completely out of complete paranoia and sheer terror. There are many ways to protect your family if you feel so threatened from criminals breaking in that don't include guns. There are many risky and dangerous environments in our world, but that doesn't mean we need to fight it with more violence.
I respect the choices of holding a fire arm in your possession, but we should put stricter limits on what exactly is available for the public use.
paranoia and sheer terror? I don't know where you live, but in the real world it can happen to anyone and it happens pretty often in my area. my car has been broken into four times and I've replaced my window twice, replaced my car door actuator once, and replaced ignition once. 5 houses down someone broke into their house not even 3 months ago, and neighbors have been warning me that they have seen suspicious activity.
stricter limits on what? shotguns are much deadlier than what video games and other nonsense portray them as, and handguns in the same situation as the last few shootings are way more realistic than a .223 ARMALITE rifle, the civilian version of the M16, which would be better for minimum 50 yards distances.
my thoughts? that video is named wrong, 'cause from my perspective the gun-nut looked like a god-damned idiot who in no possible objective context can claim to have won that argument. Why the hell does the political factions have to be brought into everything in America.
An assault rifle or any other burst or sustained fire weapon has no real place in the hands of civilians because it is overkill for defending a home. i'm going to guess that the average burglary or home invasion is performed by at most a small group of individuals (2-3, to a max of 5) the fact then that you have an assault rifle seems like colossal overkill therefor when a handgun would seem sufficient.
also can an american answer me these two questions:
"were the Founding Fathers infallible?" "if they were not then why does the constitution - a document that potentially has mistakes - become the be-all, end-all of america politics?"
look i know there must be processes that are used to examine the constitution and alter it but surely if a single passage has been questioned for necessity/usefulness/ambiguity/morality as often as the 2nd amendment has, you'd think that it wouldn't immediately be an acceptable argument which unfortunately seems to happen with some pro-gun owners saying "2nd amendment" as they're sum total argument.
i swear if you weren't as important an economy and military as you are, you'd be compared to NK for some of the stuff you do. it's exasperating.
Note: no offence is intended as what i say comes from a fundamentally anti-gun society and i just don't understand Americans sometimes
my thoughts? that video is named wrong, 'cause from my perspective the gun-nut looked like a god-damned idiot who in no possible objective context can claim to have won that argument. Why the hell does the political factions have to be brought into everything in America.
An assault rifle or any other burst or sustained fire weapon has no real place in the hands of civilians because it is overkill for defending a home. i'm going to guess that the average burglary or home invasion is performed by at most a small group of individuals (2-3, to a max of 5) the fact then that you have an assault rifle seems like colossal overkill therefor when a handgun would seem sufficient.
also can an american answer me these two questions:
"were the Founding Fathers infallible?" "if they were not then why does the constitution - a document that potentially has mistakes - become the be-all, end-all of america politics?"
look i know there must be processes that are used to examine the constitution and alter it but surely if a single passage has been questioned for necessity/usefulness/ambiguity/morality as often as the 2nd amendment has, you'd think that it wouldn't immediately be an acceptable argument which unfortunately seems to happen with some pro-gun owners saying "2nd amendment" as they're sum total argument.
i swear if you weren't as important an economy and military as you are, you'd be compared to NK for some of the stuff you do. it's exasperating.
Note: no offence is intended as what i say comes from a fundamentally anti-gun society and i just don't understand Americans sometimes
you do realize that it requires a class 3 license, months of paperwork, and thousands of dollars to obtain an automatic weapon? a .223 bushmaster is not an assault rifle. it is completely semi-automatic. it just has more options to add-on to make it more "tactical" or similar to an assault weapon, such as adjusting stock, different types of scopes and sights, and a 30 round magazine.
there are plenty of handguns that can have 30+ round drums.
my thoughts? that video is named wrong, 'cause from my perspective the gun-nut looked like a god-damned idiot who in no possible objective context can claim to have won that argument. Why the hell does the political factions have to be brought into everything in America.
An assault rifle or any other burst or sustained fire weapon has no real place in the hands of civilians because it is overkill for defending a home. i'm going to guess that the average burglary or home invasion is performed by at most a small group of individuals (2-3, to a max of 5) the fact then that you have an assault rifle seems like colossal overkill therefor when a handgun would seem sufficient.
also can an american answer me these two questions:
"were the Founding Fathers infallible?" "if they were not then why does the constitution - a document that potentially has mistakes - become the be-all, end-all of america politics?"
look i know there must be processes that are used to examine the constitution and alter it but surely if a single passage has been questioned for necessity/usefulness/ambiguity/morality as often as the 2nd amendment has, you'd think that it wouldn't immediately be an acceptable argument which unfortunately seems to happen with some pro-gun owners saying "2nd amendment" as they're sum total argument.
i swear if you weren't as important an economy and military as you are, you'd be compared to NK for some of the stuff you do. it's exasperating.
Note: no offence is intended as what i say comes from a fundamentally anti-gun society and i just don't understand Americans sometimes
To answer your question about the founding fathers rather obviously, it depends on who you ask. Some would answer yes, some would answer no. I would personally say the notion that any human could be infallible, founding father or not, is absurd.
Care to explain what about his argument you found nutty and idiotic? He generalizes political faction movements between left and right agendas a bit much as you mentioned, but making generalizations doesn't seem like a good criteria for judging someone a "nutty idiot" (much to your benefit as well as his). Defense against burglary and home invasion wasn't mentioned once in the video so I don't know why you brought it up.
my thoughts? that video is named wrong, 'cause from my perspective the gun-nut looked like a god-damned idiot who in no possible objective context can claim to have won that argument. Why the hell does the political factions have to be brought into everything in America.
An assault rifle or any other burst or sustained fire weapon has no real place in the hands of civilians because it is overkill for defending a home. i'm going to guess that the average burglary or home invasion is performed by at most a small group of individuals (2-3, to a max of 5) the fact then that you have an assault rifle seems like colossal overkill therefor when a handgun would seem sufficient.
also can an american answer me these two questions:
"were the Founding Fathers infallible?" "if they were not then why does the constitution - a document that potentially has mistakes - become the be-all, end-all of america politics?"
look i know there must be processes that are used to examine the constitution and alter it but surely if a single passage has been questioned for necessity/usefulness/ambiguity/morality as often as the 2nd amendment has, you'd think that it wouldn't immediately be an acceptable argument which unfortunately seems to happen with some pro-gun owners saying "2nd amendment" as they're sum total argument.
i swear if you weren't as important an economy and military as you are, you'd be compared to NK for some of the stuff you do. it's exasperating.
Note: no offence is intended as what i say comes from a fundamentally anti-gun society and i just don't understand Americans sometimes
Yesss, you took the words right out of my mouth. What I really want to see discussed in the public media is what I've bolded from your post, also similarly summarised below:
'Have we ever considered that the second amendment could be wrong/inappropriate in modern times?' or 'Have we ever considered that we might be wrong about guns?' <- This could apply to all sides of the argument, people just need to honestly ask themselves if it's possible that they're wrong.
N.B. Even if you remove the second amendment, that doesn't mean guns are instantly illegal and are going to be seized.
my thoughts? that video is named wrong, 'cause from my perspective the gun-nut looked like a god-damned idiot who in no possible objective context can claim to have won that argument. Why the hell does the political factions have to be brought into everything in America.
An assault rifle or any other burst or sustained fire weapon has no real place in the hands of civilians because it is overkill for defending a home. i'm going to guess that the average burglary or home invasion is performed by at most a small group of individuals (2-3, to a max of 5) the fact then that you have an assault rifle seems like colossal overkill therefor when a handgun would seem sufficient.
also can an american answer me these two questions:
"were the Founding Fathers infallible?" "if they were not then why does the constitution - a document that potentially has mistakes - become the be-all, end-all of america politics?"
look i know there must be processes that are used to examine the constitution and alter it but surely if a single passage has been questioned for necessity/usefulness/ambiguity/morality as often as the 2nd amendment has, you'd think that it wouldn't immediately be an acceptable argument which unfortunately seems to happen with some pro-gun owners saying "2nd amendment" as they're sum total argument.
i swear if you weren't as important an economy and military as you are, you'd be compared to NK for some of the stuff you do. it's exasperating.
Note: no offence is intended as what i say comes from a fundamentally anti-gun society and i just don't understand Americans sometimes
you do realize that it requires a class 3 license, months of paperwork, and thousands of dollars to obtain an automatic weapon? a .223 bushmaster is not an assault rifle. it is completely semi-automatic. it just has more options to add-on to make it more "tactical" or similar to an assault weapon, such as adjusting stock, different types of scopes and sights, and a 30 round magazine.
there are plenty of handguns that can have 30+ round drums.
i did not actually, but my point is this: what sort of target are you expecting to face that requires burst-fire capacity?
my view is this: a semi-automatic will be used to engage a single target or small groups which i think as 2-3 guys, because it's not rapid fire and as such you need to aim your shots to use it effectively making it ideal for these small groups.
on the other hand an automatic is essentially for putting either as many bullets into one target as possible in the shortest time possible OR hit as many targets as possible in the shortest time possible.
the first use has military advantages because your opponent could be wearing armour and not be downed by a single round, but the chances of armored burglars or home invaders? near non-existant i'd wager.
the second use also only really has military advantages because otherwise what civilian is having to face larger groups of people legitimately.
basicly a semi- is surgical while an automatic is overkill. if you're reducing risk take away the extreme option for damage first would be a sensible policy.
but please educate me more if you know any other uses for an assault rifle, because i genuinely want to understand your arguments
also the size of magazine seems slightly irrelevant compared to the speed at which those round can be fired IMO which is why i specified burst or sustained fire weapons
I had like a 500+ word post but it got deleted somehow lol Oh well...
I don't care what the second amendment says, in fact I honestly don't care what any laws say, I believe the law should operate around what is right.
Given that, it is fair for people to be able to effectively protect themselves from whatever dangers there are that can present themselves to them such as burglars, muggers, etc. Pepper spray, tasers, hand to hand combat, and other non-lethal forms of protection can be unreliable and, especially in the case of hand to hand combat, hard to use.
@GGTeMpLaR it was the circular logic he used in saying that he needed guns to oppose the government while he at the same time said he didn't expect for either himself or his kids to ever use them. his entire argument was based on a paranoia which while appropriate at the time of writing seems to be irrelevant nowadays.
as well as the idiocy of one man with a gun being able to oppose government tyranny - the original amendment which mentioned militias COULD have done so because militias were organised, nowadays the idea of all these gun-owners joining together to fight the government seems ludicrous at best.
to sum it up his preparations for a bogey enemy which are very likely inadequate seems to be blocking any progress towards eliminating the risk of mass-shootings to society so he seems idiotic to me.
EDIT: @suc no removing the second amendment does not make guns illegal, what it does is force pro-gun groups to start arguing instead of pointing at the "2nd amendment" and saying "the constitution says it so its true and obviously right"
my thoughts? that video is named wrong, 'cause from my perspective the gun-nut looked like a god-damned idiot who in no possible objective context can claim to have won that argument. Why the hell does the political factions have to be brought into everything in America.
An assault rifle or any other burst or sustained fire weapon has no real place in the hands of civilians because it is overkill for defending a home. i'm going to guess that the average burglary or home invasion is performed by at most a small group of individuals (2-3, to a max of 5) the fact then that you have an assault rifle seems like colossal overkill therefor when a handgun would seem sufficient.
also can an american answer me these two questions:
"were the Founding Fathers infallible?" "if they were not then why does the constitution - a document that potentially has mistakes - become the be-all, end-all of america politics?"
look i know there must be processes that are used to examine the constitution and alter it but surely if a single passage has been questioned for necessity/usefulness/ambiguity/morality as often as the 2nd amendment has, you'd think that it wouldn't immediately be an acceptable argument which unfortunately seems to happen with some pro-gun owners saying "2nd amendment" as they're sum total argument.
i swear if you weren't as important an economy and military as you are, you'd be compared to NK for some of the stuff you do. it's exasperating.
Note: no offence is intended as what i say comes from a fundamentally anti-gun society and i just don't understand Americans sometimes
An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. An an assault rifle is a weapon that fires more than 1 round per trigger pull ie full auto, or burst. Any weapon even a single shot gun is going to have sustained fire. But the rate of fire will be less. Furthermore auto or machine guns are Class 3 Weapons, due to the Hughes Amendment of 1986 (this process was controversial) no more of these weapons can be manufactured for sale to civilians. You can still get a full auto gun but will be paying $8,000 and up. How many legal machine guns were in civilians hand in 1986 is the same amount today that is a major factor of why they are so expensive.
No I hunt,shoot for fun, and have guns for self defense. But this is not the reason for the 2nd Amendment. Everyone always like to say why would you need that for hunting or why do you need that gun. Do you really think after freedom of speech, religion, etc the founding father's said "What we really need to do now is to protect duck and deer hunters"Furthermore it is called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs This is the opposite of NK. The 2nd Amendment is there to protect against a tyrannical government. Without guns how are you supposed to protect the other amendments in the bill of rights, government says no more freedom of speech. What are you going to do write your congressman?
Do I think I will ever have to use my guns in this manner, no. But at sometime the citizens of America will most likely have too, be it 100 years or 1,000 years from now. Furthermore the planner of the attack on Pearl Harbor was against invading America during the 2nd WW. He said something to the affect of "There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass"
Gun ban or not there will be more mass shootings. While sad they should not be used to put any more restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. Due to the 4th Amendment lots of POS have been let go free, Murders, Rapist, Pedophiles but we still have the right not to be searched without a warrant.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject
my thoughts? that video is named wrong, 'cause from my perspective the gun-nut looked like a god-damned idiot who in no possible objective context can claim to have won that argument. Why the hell does the political factions have to be brought into everything in America.
An assault rifle or any other burst or sustained fire weapon has no real place in the hands of civilians because it is overkill for defending a home. i'm going to guess that the average burglary or home invasion is performed by at most a small group of individuals (2-3, to a max of 5) the fact then that you have an assault rifle seems like colossal overkill therefor when a handgun would seem sufficient.
also can an american answer me these two questions:
"were the Founding Fathers infallible?" "if they were not then why does the constitution - a document that potentially has mistakes - become the be-all, end-all of america politics?"
look i know there must be processes that are used to examine the constitution and alter it but surely if a single passage has been questioned for necessity/usefulness/ambiguity/morality as often as the 2nd amendment has, you'd think that it wouldn't immediately be an acceptable argument which unfortunately seems to happen with some pro-gun owners saying "2nd amendment" as they're sum total argument.
i swear if you weren't as important an economy and military as you are, you'd be compared to NK for some of the stuff you do. it's exasperating.
Note: no offence is intended as what i say comes from a fundamentally anti-gun society and i just don't understand Americans sometimes
you do realize that it requires a class 3 license, months of paperwork, and thousands of dollars to obtain an automatic weapon? a .223 bushmaster is not an assault rifle. it is completely semi-automatic. it just has more options to add-on to make it more "tactical" or similar to an assault weapon, such as adjusting stock, different types of scopes and sights, and a 30 round magazine.
there are plenty of handguns that can have 30+ round drums.
i did not actually, but my point is this: what sort of target are you expecting to face that requires burst-fire capacity?
my view is this: a semi-automatic will be used to engage a single target or small groups which i think as 2-3 guys, because it's not rapid fire and as such you need to aim your shots to use it effectively making it ideal for these small groups.
on the other hand an automatic is essentially for putting either as many bullets into one target as possible in the shortest time possible OR hit as many targets as possible in the shortest time possible.
the first use has military advantages because your opponent could be wearing armour and not be downed by a single round, but the chances of armored burglars or home invaders? near non-existant i'd wager.
the second use also only really has military advantages because otherwise what civilian is having to face larger groups of people legitimately.
basicly a semi- is surgical while an automatic is overkill. if you're reducing risk take away the extreme option for damage first would be a sensible policy.
but please educate me more if you know any other uses for an assault rifle, because i genuinely want to understand your arguments
also the size of magazine seems slightly irrelevant compared to the speed at which those round can be fired IMO which is why i specified burst or sustained fire weapons
sorry I didn't specify. a bushmaster .223 which is the weapon used in the last 3 headline shootings cannot be burst fire or automatic. it is semi-automatic only. two handguns used simultaneously are just as deadly than this weapon unless the target is farther away. events that happen with automatic or burst fire weapons is extremely rare. THAT is an assault rifle. an ar-15 is not an assault rifle.
people don't NEED an ar-15 for home defense, and they don't need a shotgun or handgun either. we don't NEED to drive cars to work and we can take the bus instead, and many lives would be saved. don't approximately 120 people die every day in the US from car crashes?
the main reason other than home defense, which is slightly overkill, only because of close corridors/hallways/rooms, is to protect the people from a tyrannical government, which is the entire point of the 2nd amendment, not for hunting or self defense. as shapiro said in the videos, it CAN happen, whether it be in 20 years, 50 years, or 100 years. it is our right as americans to own weapons, and the more dangerous the gun is, the harder it is to obtain. thats why very few people own automatic/burst firearms.
and before anyone says how can a semi-automatic weapon fight against tanks/drones/navy/jets, do you really think all of the military of the US would turn on their families? how did muskets fight against arguably the best navy/organized army/cavalry in the world?
my thoughts? that video is named wrong, 'cause from my perspective the gun-nut looked like a god-damned idiot who in no possible objective context can claim to have won that argument. Why the hell does the political factions have to be brought into everything in America.
An assault rifle or any other burst or sustained fire weapon has no real place in the hands of civilians because it is overkill for defending a home. i'm going to guess that the average burglary or home invasion is performed by at most a small group of individuals (2-3, to a max of 5) the fact then that you have an assault rifle seems like colossal overkill therefor when a handgun would seem sufficient.
also can an american answer me these two questions:
"were the Founding Fathers infallible?" "if they were not then why does the constitution - a document that potentially has mistakes - become the be-all, end-all of america politics?"
look i know there must be processes that are used to examine the constitution and alter it but surely if a single passage has been questioned for necessity/usefulness/ambiguity/morality as often as the 2nd amendment has, you'd think that it wouldn't immediately be an acceptable argument which unfortunately seems to happen with some pro-gun owners saying "2nd amendment" as they're sum total argument.
i swear if you weren't as important an economy and military as you are, you'd be compared to NK for some of the stuff you do. it's exasperating.
Note: no offence is intended as what i say comes from a fundamentally anti-gun society and i just don't understand Americans sometimes
Yesss, you took the words right out of my mouth. What I really want to see discussed in the public media is what I've bolded from your post, also similarly summarised below:
'Have we ever considered that the second amendment could be wrong/inappropriate in modern times?' or 'Have we ever considered that we might be wrong about guns?' <- This could apply to all sides of the argument, people just need to honestly ask themselves if it's possible that they're wrong.
N.B. Even if you remove the second amendment, that doesn't mean guns are instantly illegal and are going to be seized.
my thoughts? that video is named wrong, 'cause from my perspective the gun-nut looked like a god-damned idiot who in no possible objective context can claim to have won that argument. Why the hell does the political factions have to be brought into everything in America.
An assault rifle or any other burst or sustained fire weapon has no real place in the hands of civilians because it is overkill for defending a home. i'm going to guess that the average burglary or home invasion is performed by at most a small group of individuals (2-3, to a max of 5) the fact then that you have an assault rifle seems like colossal overkill therefor when a handgun would seem sufficient.
also can an american answer me these two questions:
"were the Founding Fathers infallible?" "if they were not then why does the constitution - a document that potentially has mistakes - become the be-all, end-all of america politics?"
look i know there must be processes that are used to examine the constitution and alter it but surely if a single passage has been questioned for necessity/usefulness/ambiguity/morality as often as the 2nd amendment has, you'd think that it wouldn't immediately be an acceptable argument which unfortunately seems to happen with some pro-gun owners saying "2nd amendment" as they're sum total argument.
i swear if you weren't as important an economy and military as you are, you'd be compared to NK for some of the stuff you do. it's exasperating.
Note: no offence is intended as what i say comes from a fundamentally anti-gun society and i just don't understand Americans sometimes
An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. An an assault rifle is a weapon that fires more than 1 round per trigger pull ie full auto, or burst. Any weapon even a single shot gun is going to have sustained fire. But the rate of fire will be less. Furthermore auto or machine guns are Class 3 Weapons, due to the Hughes Amendment of 1986 (this process was controversial) no more of these weapons can be manufactured for sale to civilians. You can still get a full auto gun but will be paying $8,000 and up. How many legal machine guns were in civilians hand in 1986 is the same amount today that is a major factor of why they are so expensive.
Really? did not know that. that is actually a good step and i can't argue about that
No I hunt,shoot for fun, and have guns for self defense. But this is not the reason for the 2nd Amendment. Everyone always like to say why would you need that for hunting or why do you need that gun. Do you really think after freedom of speech, religion, etc the founding father's said "What we really need to do now is to protect duck and deer hunters"Furthermore it is called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs This is the opposite of NK. The 2nd Amendment is there to protect against a tyrannical government. Without guns how are you supposed to protect the other amendments in the bill of rights, government says no more freedom of speech. What are you going to do write your congressman?
Well hopefully this is what you would do, as obviously this is affecting your most important document and so would be subject to very rigorous scrutiny by your politicians before it became law, prior to which the american people would have made their opinions very clear and would also have recourse through the supreme courts. Something that big should NEVER be able to happen overnight, and there should always be checks in place to limit the authority that politicians wield.
Do I think I will ever have to use my guns in this manner, no. But at sometime the citizens of America will most likely have too, be it 100 years or 1,000 years from now. Furthermore the planner of the attack on Pearl Harbor was against invading America during the 2nd WW. He said something to the affect of "There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass"
America's civilians are far more likely to mobilize against an invading army than they are they're own government, because one is a hostile action from a foreign power whereas the other would be the government overstepping an individuals view of their proper boundaries
Gun ban or not there will be more mass shootings. While sad they should not be used to put any more restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. Due to the 4th Amendment lots of POS have been let go free, Murders, Rapist, Pedophiles but we still have the right not to be searched without a warrant.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject
short of a utopia crime will never be able to be completely stamped out, but we can try and make it as difficult as possible so as to try and prevent as much as possible. A historical document should not be considered unalterable just because the things it was designed to protect against have not yet come to pass, and americans should not have this intense objection on principal to the chance of their constitution needing fixed.
Oh and the NK remark was only meant as in "you do crazy shit no one else understands why" sort of way not in any comparison of the rights and needs of your respective countries citizens
On January 12 2013 11:20 SCkad wrote: @GGTeMpLaR it was the circular logic he used in saying that he needed guns to oppose the government while he at the same time said he didn't expect for either himself or his kids to ever use them. his entire argument was based on a paranoia which while appropriate at the time of writing seems to be irrelevant nowadays.
as well as the idiocy of one man with a gun being able to oppose government tyranny - the original amendment which mentioned militias COULD have done so because militias were organised, nowadays the idea of all these gun-owners joining together to fight the government seems ludicrous at best.
to sum it up his preparations for a bogey enemy which are very likely inadequate seems to be blocking any progress towards eliminating the risk of mass-shootings to society so he seems idiotic to me.
EDIT: @suc no removing the second amendment does not make guns illegal, what it does is force pro-gun groups to start arguing instead of pointing at the "2nd amendment" and saying "the constitution says it so its true and obviously right"
The fact that he didn't think he or his children would ever need them is precisely why it wasn't based on paranoia. It was based on historical trends.
He never argues one man with a gun is able to do that. It seems ludicrous because there is no reason to think a revolution against our government is necessary right now; he never advocates such an idea.
You haven't really criticized his argument at all because you seem confused about the actual specifics of what it is.
How is arguing for stricter gun control and mandatory background checks blocking progress towards eliminating the risk of mass-shootings?
On January 12 2013 11:20 SCkad wrote: @GGTeMpLaR it was the circular logic he used in saying that he needed guns to oppose the government while he at the same time said he didn't expect for either himself or his kids to ever use them. his entire argument was based on a paranoia which while appropriate at the time of writing seems to be irrelevant nowadays.
as well as the idiocy of one man with a gun being able to oppose government tyranny - the original amendment which mentioned militias COULD have done so because militias were organised, nowadays the idea of all these gun-owners joining together to fight the government seems ludicrous at best.
to sum it up his preparations for a bogey enemy which are very likely inadequate seems to be blocking any progress towards eliminating the risk of mass-shootings to society so he seems idiotic to me.
EDIT: @suc no removing the second amendment does not make guns illegal, what it does is force pro-gun groups to start arguing instead of pointing at the "2nd amendment" and saying "the constitution says it so its true and obviously right"
The fact that he didn't think he or his children would ever need them is precisely why it wasn't based on paranoia. It was based on historical trends.
He never argues one man with a gun is able to do that. It seems ludicrous because there is no reason to think a revolution against our government is necessary right now; he never advocates such an idea.
How is arguing for stricter gun control and mandatory background checks blocking progress towards eliminating the risk of mass-shootings?
surprisingly enough the thing about history is we tend to learn from it. i.e jimmy saville got away with mass pedophilia before it is going to be much more difficult for anyone else to do so now.
no he advocates that he requires guns so that he could do what then? he says he expects in the next century or so that civilians will need guns to overthrow their government, correct? if so then why does he, himself need that gun?
the measures he supports are in place to an extent and aren't working and almost anything else suggested is decried as breaching the second amendment.
also americans have you considered that if you think your government is going to betray you/turn on you that you might want to try and change the system? you know instead of waiting for some point after they have started this uprising which might succeed but certainly cost lives and THEN change the system?
also to whoever said "do you think all US military would turn on their families?" do you think all the civilians would support you?
my thoughts? that video is named wrong, 'cause from my perspective the gun-nut looked like a god-damned idiot who in no possible objective context can claim to have won that argument. Why the hell does the political factions have to be brought into everything in America.
An assault rifle or any other burst or sustained fire weapon has no real place in the hands of civilians because it is overkill for defending a home. i'm going to guess that the average burglary or home invasion is performed by at most a small group of individuals (2-3, to a max of 5) the fact then that you have an assault rifle seems like colossal overkill therefor when a handgun would seem sufficient.
also can an american answer me these two questions:
"were the Founding Fathers infallible?" "if they were not then why does the constitution - a document that potentially has mistakes - become the be-all, end-all of america politics?"
look i know there must be processes that are used to examine the constitution and alter it but surely if a single passage has been questioned for necessity/usefulness/ambiguity/morality as often as the 2nd amendment has, you'd think that it wouldn't immediately be an acceptable argument which unfortunately seems to happen with some pro-gun owners saying "2nd amendment" as they're sum total argument.
i swear if you weren't as important an economy and military as you are, you'd be compared to NK for some of the stuff you do. it's exasperating.
Note: no offence is intended as what i say comes from a fundamentally anti-gun society and i just don't understand Americans sometimes
I feel that I should point out again that the constitutional amendments do not prevent local laws from being made. While they are often used as legal arguments against local laws, they don't technically restrict the ability for counties or cities to restrict legal gun ownership or use. While some may point to District of Columbia v. Heller as an instance where a local law was repealed based on the 2nd amendment, it was done so because Washington D.C does not belong to a state but is under the executive jurisdiction of Congress. This means that while they would certainly still be wrought with controversy, local laws can be made and enforced regarding gun control.
As far as the founding fathers goes, no one believes them to be infallible and the constitution has been changed many times. The United States constitution accounts for legalized slavery by adjusting census numbers to count any non-free persons as three fifths of a person for use in determining state representation in congress. The fourteenth amendment makes those portions of the constitution pertaining to slavery no longer valid. There's other examples as well, but they are based on things like salaries, term limits, and other details of the government that make up the majority of the US constitution; slavery just happens to be the most dramatically accessible example. The point is that the amendments people talk about in the constitution are actually changes that were made to the initial document. There have been to date twenty-seven of them, so no one who knows anything about the US constitution would ever say they were infallible. That is hardly evidence of them being incorrect pertaining to this issue though.
If the NK you mention at the end is North Korea, I would have to say that you know very little of the United States or North Korea.
On January 12 2013 11:20 SCkad wrote: @GGTeMpLaR it was the circular logic he used in saying that he needed guns to oppose the government while he at the same time said he didn't expect for either himself or his kids to ever use them. his entire argument was based on a paranoia which while appropriate at the time of writing seems to be irrelevant nowadays.
as well as the idiocy of one man with a gun being able to oppose government tyranny - the original amendment which mentioned militias COULD have done so because militias were organised, nowadays the idea of all these gun-owners joining together to fight the government seems ludicrous at best.
to sum it up his preparations for a bogey enemy which are very likely inadequate seems to be blocking any progress towards eliminating the risk of mass-shootings to society so he seems idiotic to me.
EDIT: @suc no removing the second amendment does not make guns illegal, what it does is force pro-gun groups to start arguing instead of pointing at the "2nd amendment" and saying "the constitution says it so its true and obviously right"
The fact that he didn't think he or his children would ever need them is precisely why it wasn't based on paranoia. It was based on historical trends.
He never argues one man with a gun is able to do that. It seems ludicrous because there is no reason to think a revolution against our government is necessary right now; he never advocates such an idea.
How is arguing for stricter gun control and mandatory background checks blocking progress towards eliminating the risk of mass-shootings?
surprisingly enough the thing about history is we tend to learn from it. i.e jimmy saville got away with mass pedophilia before it is going to be much more difficult for anyone else to do so now.
no he advocates that he requires guns so that he could do what then? he says he expects in the next century or so that civilians will need guns to overthrow their government, correct? if so then why does he, himself need that gun?
the measures he supports are in place to an extent and aren't working and almost anything else suggested is decried as breaching the second amendment.
also americans have you considered that if you think your government is going to betray you/turn on you that you might want to try and change the system? you know instead of waiting for some point after they have started this uprising which might succeed but certainly cost lives and THEN change the system?
also to whoever said "do you think all US military would turn on their families?" do you think all the civilians would support you?
and what are those civilians going to do without guns? lol not only is it for our own defense against our own government, but for foreign enemies as well. it isn't very likely to happen, but it isn't impossible either.
what we REALLY need to do is look at the psychological problem. the people that are crazy enough to ruin there lives (and usually kill themselves after doing such an act) are already insane, and will find a way. it is a LOT easier than you think to obtain illegal guns, ESPECIALLY if an ar-15 becomes illegal. I own many firearms, and go to stores and shows regularly, and I can tell you that almost every store in southern states is either SOLD OUT of them or their price is up to 2500+. they were 700 dollars before. where do you think they are going to go if there is a ban on them? nowhere, thats where. people are buying them just because of the idiotic law.
banning "military style rifles" even though they were built as civilian alternatives, will do literally nothing. criminals will still have theirs, and former law abiding citizens will still have theirs. I have yet to see an actual proposal that makes sense that will actually make a difference.
On January 12 2013 11:20 SCkad wrote: @GGTeMpLaR it was the circular logic he used in saying that he needed guns to oppose the government while he at the same time said he didn't expect for either himself or his kids to ever use them. his entire argument was based on a paranoia which while appropriate at the time of writing seems to be irrelevant nowadays.
as well as the idiocy of one man with a gun being able to oppose government tyranny - the original amendment which mentioned militias COULD have done so because militias were organised, nowadays the idea of all these gun-owners joining together to fight the government seems ludicrous at best.
to sum it up his preparations for a bogey enemy which are very likely inadequate seems to be blocking any progress towards eliminating the risk of mass-shootings to society so he seems idiotic to me.
EDIT: @suc no removing the second amendment does not make guns illegal, what it does is force pro-gun groups to start arguing instead of pointing at the "2nd amendment" and saying "the constitution says it so its true and obviously right"
The fact that he didn't think he or his children would ever need them is precisely why it wasn't based on paranoia. It was based on historical trends.
He never argues one man with a gun is able to do that. It seems ludicrous because there is no reason to think a revolution against our government is necessary right now; he never advocates such an idea.
How is arguing for stricter gun control and mandatory background checks blocking progress towards eliminating the risk of mass-shootings?
surprisingly enough the thing about history is we tend to learn from it. i.e jimmy saville got away with mass pedophilia before it is going to be much more difficult for anyone else to do so now.
no he advocates that he requires guns so that he could do what then? he says he expects in the next century or so that civilians will need guns to overthrow their government, correct? if so then why does he, himself need that gun?
the measures he supports are in place to an extent and aren't working and almost anything else suggested is decried as breaching the second amendment.
also americans have you considered that if you think your government is going to betray you/turn on you that you might want to try and change the system? you know instead of waiting for some point after they have started this uprising which might succeed but certainly cost lives and THEN change the system?
also to whoever said "do you think all US military would turn on their families?" do you think all the civilians would support you?
He never argues that he specifically should have the right, but that the right should be maintained for the general population such that, should the circumstances arise, they will have better potential for resistance against an authoritarian regime.
The fact that it violates the second amendment might be problematic for him personally, but in just viewing his argument, it isn't problematic at all. Don't you think it should be entirely scrapped anyways? Explain why it breaching the second amendment is relevant? We are talking about reducing gun crimes here, not preserving the constitution as it is.
Why are you talking to "americans" now? No one in this dialogue has ever said they were afraid of the government betraying them and such a useless generalization isn't going to net you any useful or consistent answer. If you're going to switch from addressing one person to another, it's best to give some indication that you're now talking to a different person (such as a new set of quotations or an @Name to depict who you are now specifically addressing).
EPT
