|
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. |
At least his apples are real world apples, instead of fantastic revolution uprising apples. The foundations for an argument in favor of unlimited gun rights a la revolucion seem hopelessly mired in fantasy for a reason.
|
On April 23 2013 14:29 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:24 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 14:22 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 14:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 14:15 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 14:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 14:02 Wombat_NI wrote:
Oh you're so restrained and full of poise by not responding.
1. Why would the military/government impose such a tyranny, realistically? What kind of hypothetical tyranny are we even talking about?
2. The military are made up of citizens, why would they all decide to join it in sufficient numbers to subjugate the civilian populace?
3. If this eventuality DID happen, what the hell are citizens going to be able to do to it?
4. Why have the US military cut manpower (according to you?) Could it be to do with the increasing use of drones and other similar unmanned vehicles and other things like that?
Simply going 'guerrilla warfare' as if it's some kind of foolproof method is ridiculous. The US has a varied environment for sure. I swear you two remind me of those people who plan for a zombie apocalype. I find it hard to tell if you think it will happen, or just enjoy theorycrafting how it would go. The two are both about as likely to happen. Pretty sure you weren't responding to me, but I wanted to clarify for you anyway, on why I brought up the Scalia guns vs. US military thing: The point of theory crafting about a tyrannical US government hell bent on engaging armed pockets of US civilians was to show in a very basic way that the presence of rifles and handguns would mean absolutely nothing given that the military possess the means by which to overcome these obsolete weapons quite easily (re: drones, guided missiles, precision bombing, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc). The point was absolutely not to focus on whether or not it could happen -- something Serm and Frus wanted to attack (we call this strawman arguing :D). Frankly, any relatively sane person should understand that it is highly unlikely to ever see a murderous US dictatorship that would murder its own civilians. Rifles and handguns would mean a lot in any resistance. Cite a successful resistance of a modern dictatorship by civilians armed with small arms, and without access to foreign military aid. "Would mean a lot" is awfully subjective. Scalia thinks that they would not overcome a modern military, so I would like to politely request that you explain to me why this is wrong. Not from your imagination, but with real examples, please. Cite a non successful resistance of a modern dictatorship by civilians arms with small arms and without access to foreign military aid. I can literally do that because you just ignored my entire post except for one line about an example that you brought up originally. Do you have anything backing up your point at all or are you just looking to paint me as a crazy redneck afraid of the government? Kuwait edit: literally 2.8 million population in an area smaller than almost every State alone compared to 300 million population with some of the most square miles in any country in the world. I love apples man, especially when compared to other apples.
Lol. Solid argument. I concede. Gun control is bad because we need guns to fight the government in case it attacks us, since as Serm says, handguns and rifles, like, would probably do a lot to the full power of the US military.
|
On April 23 2013 12:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 11:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 10:54 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 10:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 10:23 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 10:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 09:34 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 08:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:15 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 08:07 Warheart wrote:
[quote]
if you get sprayed in the face you won't be in the mood of raping people for a good while: " It causes immediate closing of the eyes, difficulty breathing, runny nose, and coughing. The duration of its effects depends on the strength of the spray but the average full effect lasts around thirty to forty-five minutes, with diminished effects lasting for hours"
in short it means that you can have all the time to escape and call for help And if the assailant covers his face with his arms, holds his breath, closes his eyes, and bull rushes the victim, the pepper spray suddenly becomes much less effective. Alternately, in a successful use of pepper spray sometimes the target lashes out violently which depending on the location could be a very big problem for the attempted rape victim. Compare these two situations if a gun is used instead of pepper spray. Guns cannot easily be blocked, nor is a target as likely to remain a threat after being hit. I'm not specifically advocating gun use in this situation... I'm just pointing out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for say, a small woman, to defend herself from a tough male. On April 23 2013 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Can't you just bum rush a person that is 13 feet away or less before they can pull out a gun? By that standard, anything less than a weapon you can already have up and ready is useless to sneak attacks making pepper spray and its ilk the only valid forms of self defense unless you're okay having everyone carrying guns out by hand, safety off and at the ready. If you can get rushed before drawing the gun then you can also get rushed before drawing the pepper spray. Once again I'm not advocating gun use here, specifically. Bum rush means ANY and all restrained weapons are useless. This means that the only relevant weapon for self defense are weapons that have to be at the ready, safety off, weilded by someone already prepared to shoot/strike at any moment. Which do you think will lead to more accidental kills in these circumstances--guns, or pepper spray. Both are useless with the safety/cap on and both are even more useless in the purse/holster. So which one is preferred being pointed in public? Why are you completely missing my point? I'm just comparing the potential of different items for certain defensive purposes. Why are you asking me about what the public prefers or which leads to more accidental kills? In your hypothetical conjectures, I think it would be nice to also include some "what ifs" not in favor of carrying a gun. Example: Missing your target. A gun might kill an innocent bystander who wasn't visible to the shooter. Pepper spray does not create the risk of killing someone if it misses its target. Some Piers Morgan logic right there, and this just opens up a can of worms of even more hypotheticals I can counter your instance with. So the risk of someone having poor aim justifies me not being able to defend myself? I guess we need to ban cars because some people suck at driving and might run over people because they can't stay on the damn road. To use your own logic against you, what if guns get banned and someone who would have shot 12 kids in a school now decides to use a car to kill people, possibly running over 50 children playing in a playground? It's just pointless logic and it doesn't justify anything. Was I the one who started by raising hypothetical situations? No, so I'm not sure why you are attacking me and my "something to sound smart" logic. I noticed the one guy was saying, "well, see here's why pepper spray isn't as good as guns for preventing rape...pepper spray might miss the target's eyes, etc." To which I replied... "OK, let's be fair and think about the situations that could arise in which a gun would do more harm than good". Hopefully you understand now. I admit, I did chuckle a bit from your response  I keep confusing people, sorry that was my mistake. On April 23 2013 10:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 10:09 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:17 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. if the rapist is armed he would have the advantage anyways in that kind of situation; besides exceptions can't be the base for deciding if people in general should be allowed to carry guns.
for example in my country (Italy) exceptions do exist and i'm fine with them exactly because precise requirements have to be met and i don't have to worry about the fact that in a car accident some random dude can freak out and pull a gun on me. Ugh please edit and fix your post because I was not the one who said the part in bold, I was the one who responded to it >_> As far as using pepper spray to stop a rapist? You have to be fucking kidding me, must be nice to live in such a closed society where pepper spray saves lives and prevents rapes. The real world envies you. If the man has a knife and the woman has pepper spray she would be extremely lucky if that is enough to subdue him. On April 23 2013 04:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 03:39 danl9rm wrote:On April 23 2013 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Police enters room, sees dead guy and a woman with a gun.
She says: "He tried to rape me"
Did he or didn't he? That's way off the scope of what we were discussing. He said deserves. I said deserves. You're saying "what," as in, "what happened?" I was using a hypothetical; I get to pick what happened. I'm using a hypothetical too. Is it okay for women to shoot men and simply say self defense. I mean sure, I hate rapists, and I would hate them more if they raped my mother, but does that mean murder is okay so long as I hate them? Like, say I hated black people as much as I hated rapists--does that make it okay to shoot black people? The truth is that its irrelevant how you feel about the situation, what matters is the evidence present. Like what if I'm a woman with a gun, I walk into an alley and see a known sex offender who I saw on TV and just shoot the guy on the spot. Am I a hero? What if its someone that looked like the sex offender on TV? Am I still a hero? What if I just thought it was a sex offender or a scary looking dude that might rape me--if I shoot him am I still a hero? Or maybe the fact that we already criminalize rape shows that we don't need guns "just in case" rape happens. The fact that you hate them is irrelevant, what an absurd assumption of anyone's position on the matter. The fact that they rapd somebody is why it would be okay to murder them (in my opinion). You're hypothetical scenario where a woman has a gun and walks into an alley and sees a known sex offender from tv is even MORE absurd. If she shoots a man she thinks is a sex offender she is a murderer. If he tries to rape her and she kills him then she would be a hero. Guns can be used for self defense, be it attempted rape or attempted murder. Just because we criminalize rape doesn't mean we should take away anyone's abilities to take matters in their own hands and defend themselves. As far as the outcome after a woman shoots someone who attempts to rape her, obviously she would go to trial for murder and plead self-defense. If it is proven without a shadow of a doubt that there was no rape attempt and she murdered him, then she deserves to be charged with murder. If it was proven she did it in self-defense, then she doesn't get charged. How much time must the woman give to the attacker before it's no longer murder? Once he's about 10 feet away (or the length of a standard sized room) she's already too late and is now raped before she can pull out her gun. So she either shoots him when he's in the other room or waits until he's already on top of her--in which case her gun is useless and most likely will be used against her. Such black and white logic is useless. She could pull the gun on him if he approaches her in a threatening manner, hopefully this is enough to stop him and the entire attack is prevented. If he pulls a gun on her, shooting him is now justified as her life was in danger. If he pulls a knife or other weapon and charges her, she is also justified in shooting him. If they both end up on the ground with him on top of her, if possible to access her gun and shoot him, she is, again, justified in shooting him. It isn't just as simple as well she either shoots him from 10 feet away or she is raped. Anything can happen. Why can't you just use common sense (common sense being that there are more than 2 or 3 possible outcomes in any dangerous situation) and look at any instance of self-defense and apply it to this type of scenario? I apologize for not making example black and white enough, because according to Rhino85 On April 23 2013 09:35 Rhino85 wrote:
In my CHL (concealed handgun license) class the instructor said that at 21 feet an attacker can close the distance by the time you draw your weapon out. So if you're unsure of a situation do your best to keep further away then that. Obviously if someone surprises you there isn't much that you can do about it. But if you give me a choice of being jumped and having pepper spray or a handgun to defend myself, I'll take the handgun every time. 21 feet is the distance someone can close before you can pull your gun so you'll have to decide to shoot them from about 22 feet away or you just don't have time to actually pull out the gun. If he pulls out a gun before she does she's already dead by time she's trying to flip the safety. If he has a knife she's already gutted by the time she's reached in her purse. Now in that scenario I'd rather have a gun than pepper spray--mostly because at least a gun can be used as a club. At that point I'd be happy with a flashlight, a cane, a rock, etc.... And this is when I just use common sense. If you're in the same room as another person, you don't have enough time to pull out the gun unless you already are pulling out your gun. If you're pulling out your gun before they charge you then you're a murderer with intent, if you try to pull out the gun before they charge you then it's too late. Assuming she doesn't pull out the gun, miss, and then have the gun taken from her and now she's raped at gun point and then shot afterwards. She could also reach for her gun and in her panic forgetting to take off the safety in which case the attacker takes the gun and beats her to death with it. So many possible scenarios both good and bad! A lot of scenarios where the person has to preemptively pull the gun on someone before danger is present as well. I mean, if we're going to base gun control on whether women should shoot possible racists, these are things we need to talk about. Or we could just look at the 2008 Supreme Court case and then keep the discussion about property rights. It is only one reason why gun control will backfire if it's goals are to prevent violent crimes. Self-defense, the fact that you don't have any good reasons why to take them away, and the reasons the 2nd amendment was created are pretty solid arguments for why gun control is a bad idea. Self defense is a terrible reason against gun control. There are MANY forms of self defense that don't include guns--guns are simply one of the many forms of self defense. The 2nd Amendment is also a terrible "argument" against gun control because, taken literally, it says (very specifically) "REGULATED militia." In other words, the 2nd word of the 2nd amendment is regulation ie--the 2nd amendment does not prevent gun control if read literally. The reason it is used against gun control is recent and old interpretations of the sentence with the understanding that taking it literally would produce an amendment that both allowed ownership of guns as well as allowed heavy regulation of guns. The 2008 case (Heller I think) made it so that the *current* (but not only) reading of the amendment to be an emphasis on the word *infringe* instead of placing emphasis on the word *regulated;* but this is merely a recent interpretation of the law and it might change in the future as well. So no, "self defense" and "2nd Amendment" is a terrible argument against gun control. The right to property ownership unproven to be any more dangerous than most household products is a more appropriate and fitting argument against gun control. When people stop dying to hammers more often than they die to sniper rifles--then you can argue that sniper rifles need to jump ahead of the line of dangerous property items that need regulation. You have this weird confidence in your post like you're speaking with some authority on the correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The SCOTUS disagrees with you, basic grammar disagrees with you. There is absolutely no evidence that you give (beacuse it doesn't exist) that the right to bear arms hinges on any militia requirement. Also it you are trying to go on a bend about the "regulated" requirement it would be the third word not the second. Just small potatoes but I don't get were you got that part of your arugment either.
I literally said the Supreme Court made a ruling siding with emphasizing *infringe* instead of emphasizing *regulated* I even said what date and what case it was that they specifically said it on.
What I was saying is that we as a nation currently choose to ignore *regulated* and emphasize *infringe*, this is a recent stance (2008) and not some long standing statement. It is possible that a more liberal court will side against this ruling 100 years from now, it's also possible they won't. In any course of the matter, the evidence is very plain that a regulated militia is what the Amendment talks about--because it *literally* says it verbatim.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That is the clause.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That is what hinges on the clause.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That is the central point of the clause.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #29. ("If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security")
So no, the supreme court hinging on *infringe* instead of Regulated is only the current reading of the amendment and not the *only* reading of the amendment. Which is what I said.
I do not like guns, I think they are dangerous and I think they need heavy regulations. Much like cars have heavy regulations. Cars have age restrictions, regular renewals of licenses, police patrols checking for licenses, heavy fines for minor infractions of vehicle use, ability for the city to simply impound and take your car from you. If gun laws were as strict as car laws people would not be so upset about gun laws.
BUT I am very much against the idea of federal control of private property. And much like I would hate the government telling me how many DVD's I can or can't own I don't like the idea of the government telling me how many guns I can or can't own. Now if the gun really is dangerous--then yes put restrictions on it. But prove it kills more people than hammers, sofas, pet dogs, peanut butter, and staircases before you put restriction on it. Not because its protected by the 2nd amendment, but because if you're honestly passing laws for safety and not for political gain--then restrict the more dangerous objects first.
|
On April 23 2013 14:30 farvacola wrote:
At least his apples are real world apples, instead of fantastic revolution uprising apples. The foundations for an argument in favor of gun control a la revolucion seem hopelessly mired in fantasy for a reason.
It's funny how I've never once stated the purpose of guns is for revolution or supported this "fantasy"
let me make this clear: It is not about winning, it is not about organized militias, it is not about revolution. It is about the government not being able to kick in your door without fear of two or three residents taking out a rifle or a shotgun and taking some of you down with them. It's about being able to instill, even if a little, fear into the government as well and forcing such drastic measures as bombing residential neighborhoods. Because guess what, you're right, that will NEVER happen. Our government is not nearly stupid enough to bomb residential neighborhoods or line up hundreds and slaughter them. So that just leaves one option in a tyrannical state, live in fear, if said guns exist.
The 2nd Amendment has never been about the people being able to overthrow the government. It's always been about instilling the same fear in the government that they want to instill in us. Whether or not you want to admit it, all people want is power and power corrupts absolutely. Every President, every Senator, every PM, every King, every Duke has abused their power since the beginning of time and the 2nd Amendment is one of many sticks we have to threaten back. As long as it exists in its earnest, it is a chicken and egg. We will never overthrow the government because of the implied military power, and the military will never impose absolute tyranny over us to force revolution because of 200,000,000 adults and guns providing resistance.
On April 23 2013 14:30 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:29 Fruscainte wrote:On April 23 2013 14:24 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 14:22 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 14:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 14:15 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 14:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 14:02 Wombat_NI wrote:
Oh you're so restrained and full of poise by not responding.
1. Why would the military/government impose such a tyranny, realistically? What kind of hypothetical tyranny are we even talking about?
2. The military are made up of citizens, why would they all decide to join it in sufficient numbers to subjugate the civilian populace?
3. If this eventuality DID happen, what the hell are citizens going to be able to do to it?
4. Why have the US military cut manpower (according to you?) Could it be to do with the increasing use of drones and other similar unmanned vehicles and other things like that?
Simply going 'guerrilla warfare' as if it's some kind of foolproof method is ridiculous. The US has a varied environment for sure. I swear you two remind me of those people who plan for a zombie apocalype. I find it hard to tell if you think it will happen, or just enjoy theorycrafting how it would go. The two are both about as likely to happen. Pretty sure you weren't responding to me, but I wanted to clarify for you anyway, on why I brought up the Scalia guns vs. US military thing: The point of theory crafting about a tyrannical US government hell bent on engaging armed pockets of US civilians was to show in a very basic way that the presence of rifles and handguns would mean absolutely nothing given that the military possess the means by which to overcome these obsolete weapons quite easily (re: drones, guided missiles, precision bombing, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc). The point was absolutely not to focus on whether or not it could happen -- something Serm and Frus wanted to attack (we call this strawman arguing :D). Frankly, any relatively sane person should understand that it is highly unlikely to ever see a murderous US dictatorship that would murder its own civilians. Rifles and handguns would mean a lot in any resistance. Cite a successful resistance of a modern dictatorship by civilians armed with small arms, and without access to foreign military aid. "Would mean a lot" is awfully subjective. Scalia thinks that they would not overcome a modern military, so I would like to politely request that you explain to me why this is wrong. Not from your imagination, but with real examples, please. Cite a non successful resistance of a modern dictatorship by civilians arms with small arms and without access to foreign military aid. I can literally do that because you just ignored my entire post except for one line about an example that you brought up originally. Do you have anything backing up your point at all or are you just looking to paint me as a crazy redneck afraid of the government? Kuwait edit: literally 2.8 million population in an area smaller than almost every State alone compared to 300 million population with some of the most square miles in any country in the world. I love apples man, especially when compared to other apples. Lol. Solid argument. I concede. Gun control is bad because we need guns to fight the government in case it attacks us, since as Serm says, handguns and rifles, like, would probably do a lot to the full power of the US military.
I never made any argument or had any conclusion. You complain about strawmanning, so don't be a hypocrite.
If you're going to make a comparison, make it a relevant one.
|
Well it's funny then, that you got involved in an argument that was originally framed such that it was directed at those who hold the belief that gun control endangers the ability to resist the government/military.
Also, that I can't supply Kuwait as an example due to there being a difference in square mileage and population is sort of arbitrary and absurd. You're incredibly frustrating
|
You can paint the hyperbolic fantasy any which way you like, the image of a government kicking down your door or the continued overemphasis of "us vs them" are designed with only thing in mind: fear of something that is not yet manifested in reality.
|
On April 23 2013 14:33 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Well it's funny then, that you got involved in an argument that was originally framed such that it was directed at those who hold the belief that gun control endangers the ability to resist the government/military.
Which is exactly what my post I quoted right above you talks about.
Do you seriously not even bother reading posts?
On April 23 2013 14:35 farvacola wrote:
You can paint the hyperbolic fantasy any which way you like, the image of a government kicking down your door or the continued overemphasis of "us vs them" are designed with only thing in mind: fear of something that is not yet manifested in reality.
The hyperbolic fantasy is just that, a fantasy. And it will forever remain a fantasy, a horrific fantasy that should be avoided at all costs. However, the fact is it will no longer be an unachievable fantasy if the 2nd Amendment Rights are continuously infringed.
|
On April 23 2013 14:24 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:22 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 14:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 14:15 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 14:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 14:02 Wombat_NI wrote:
Oh you're so restrained and full of poise by not responding.
1. Why would the military/government impose such a tyranny, realistically? What kind of hypothetical tyranny are we even talking about?
2. The military are made up of citizens, why would they all decide to join it in sufficient numbers to subjugate the civilian populace?
3. If this eventuality DID happen, what the hell are citizens going to be able to do to it?
4. Why have the US military cut manpower (according to you?) Could it be to do with the increasing use of drones and other similar unmanned vehicles and other things like that?
Simply going 'guerrilla warfare' as if it's some kind of foolproof method is ridiculous. The US has a varied environment for sure. I swear you two remind me of those people who plan for a zombie apocalype. I find it hard to tell if you think it will happen, or just enjoy theorycrafting how it would go. The two are both about as likely to happen. Pretty sure you weren't responding to me, but I wanted to clarify for you anyway, on why I brought up the Scalia guns vs. US military thing: The point of theory crafting about a tyrannical US government hell bent on engaging armed pockets of US civilians was to show in a very basic way that the presence of rifles and handguns would mean absolutely nothing given that the military possess the means by which to overcome these obsolete weapons quite easily (re: drones, guided missiles, precision bombing, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc). The point was absolutely not to focus on whether or not it could happen -- something Serm and Frus wanted to attack (we call this strawman arguing :D). Frankly, any relatively sane person should understand that it is highly unlikely to ever see a murderous US dictatorship that would murder its own civilians. Rifles and handguns would mean a lot in any resistance. Cite a successful resistance of a modern dictatorship by civilians armed with small arms, and without access to foreign military aid. "Would mean a lot" is awfully subjective. Scalia thinks that they would not overcome a modern military, so I would like to politely request that you explain to me why this is wrong. Not from your imagination, but with real examples, please. Cite a non successful resistance of a modern dictatorship by civilians arms with small arms and without access to foreign military aid. I can literally do that because you just ignored my entire post except for one line about an example that you brought up originally. Do you have anything backing up your point at all or are you just looking to paint me as a crazy redneck afraid of the government? Kuwait. edit: literally
So this 2 million person country 29 years fresh out of being controlled by the British empire that had no guns being occupied for a matter of just under 5 months in a space smaller then any us state is Literally what you're going to propose is hanging your argument up?
They would have had guns if they accepted out military aid to them. They said no because they wanted gun control in their country and it got them invaded by the big bad boy of iraq. I literaly have no idea why you decided to shoot yourself in the foot by proposing kuwait of all examples. Literally kuwait is the best you could do?
|
Yes, literally. You literally won this debate, I concede. Literally!
|
On April 23 2013 14:30 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:29 Fruscainte wrote:On April 23 2013 14:24 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 14:22 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 14:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 14:15 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 14:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 14:02 Wombat_NI wrote:
Oh you're so restrained and full of poise by not responding.
1. Why would the military/government impose such a tyranny, realistically? What kind of hypothetical tyranny are we even talking about?
2. The military are made up of citizens, why would they all decide to join it in sufficient numbers to subjugate the civilian populace?
3. If this eventuality DID happen, what the hell are citizens going to be able to do to it?
4. Why have the US military cut manpower (according to you?) Could it be to do with the increasing use of drones and other similar unmanned vehicles and other things like that?
Simply going 'guerrilla warfare' as if it's some kind of foolproof method is ridiculous. The US has a varied environment for sure. I swear you two remind me of those people who plan for a zombie apocalype. I find it hard to tell if you think it will happen, or just enjoy theorycrafting how it would go. The two are both about as likely to happen. Pretty sure you weren't responding to me, but I wanted to clarify for you anyway, on why I brought up the Scalia guns vs. US military thing: The point of theory crafting about a tyrannical US government hell bent on engaging armed pockets of US civilians was to show in a very basic way that the presence of rifles and handguns would mean absolutely nothing given that the military possess the means by which to overcome these obsolete weapons quite easily (re: drones, guided missiles, precision bombing, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc). The point was absolutely not to focus on whether or not it could happen -- something Serm and Frus wanted to attack (we call this strawman arguing :D). Frankly, any relatively sane person should understand that it is highly unlikely to ever see a murderous US dictatorship that would murder its own civilians. Rifles and handguns would mean a lot in any resistance. Cite a successful resistance of a modern dictatorship by civilians armed with small arms, and without access to foreign military aid. "Would mean a lot" is awfully subjective. Scalia thinks that they would not overcome a modern military, so I would like to politely request that you explain to me why this is wrong. Not from your imagination, but with real examples, please. Cite a non successful resistance of a modern dictatorship by civilians arms with small arms and without access to foreign military aid. I can literally do that because you just ignored my entire post except for one line about an example that you brought up originally. Do you have anything backing up your point at all or are you just looking to paint me as a crazy redneck afraid of the government? Kuwait edit: literally 2.8 million population in an area smaller than almost every State alone compared to 300 million population with some of the most square miles in any country in the world. I love apples man, especially when compared to other apples. Lol. Solid argument. I concede. Gun control is bad because we need guns to fight the government in case it attacks us, since as Serm says, handguns and rifles, like, would probably do a lot to the full power of the US military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress
Specifically
*To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
*To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
So early on they thought of the militia as a regulated group of citizens that are funded and managed by the federal government.
Over time, pro gun people have stripped those initial ideals into what we have today.
|
On April 23 2013 14:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:30 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 14:29 Fruscainte wrote:On April 23 2013 14:24 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 14:22 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 14:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 14:15 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 14:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 14:02 Wombat_NI wrote:
Oh you're so restrained and full of poise by not responding.
1. Why would the military/government impose such a tyranny, realistically? What kind of hypothetical tyranny are we even talking about?
2. The military are made up of citizens, why would they all decide to join it in sufficient numbers to subjugate the civilian populace?
3. If this eventuality DID happen, what the hell are citizens going to be able to do to it?
4. Why have the US military cut manpower (according to you?) Could it be to do with the increasing use of drones and other similar unmanned vehicles and other things like that?
Simply going 'guerrilla warfare' as if it's some kind of foolproof method is ridiculous. The US has a varied environment for sure. I swear you two remind me of those people who plan for a zombie apocalype. I find it hard to tell if you think it will happen, or just enjoy theorycrafting how it would go. The two are both about as likely to happen. Pretty sure you weren't responding to me, but I wanted to clarify for you anyway, on why I brought up the Scalia guns vs. US military thing: The point of theory crafting about a tyrannical US government hell bent on engaging armed pockets of US civilians was to show in a very basic way that the presence of rifles and handguns would mean absolutely nothing given that the military possess the means by which to overcome these obsolete weapons quite easily (re: drones, guided missiles, precision bombing, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc). The point was absolutely not to focus on whether or not it could happen -- something Serm and Frus wanted to attack (we call this strawman arguing :D). Frankly, any relatively sane person should understand that it is highly unlikely to ever see a murderous US dictatorship that would murder its own civilians. Rifles and handguns would mean a lot in any resistance. Cite a successful resistance of a modern dictatorship by civilians armed with small arms, and without access to foreign military aid. "Would mean a lot" is awfully subjective. Scalia thinks that they would not overcome a modern military, so I would like to politely request that you explain to me why this is wrong. Not from your imagination, but with real examples, please. Cite a non successful resistance of a modern dictatorship by civilians arms with small arms and without access to foreign military aid. I can literally do that because you just ignored my entire post except for one line about an example that you brought up originally. Do you have anything backing up your point at all or are you just looking to paint me as a crazy redneck afraid of the government? Kuwait edit: literally 2.8 million population in an area smaller than almost every State alone compared to 300 million population with some of the most square miles in any country in the world. I love apples man, especially when compared to other apples. Lol. Solid argument. I concede. Gun control is bad because we need guns to fight the government in case it attacks us, since as Serm says, handguns and rifles, like, would probably do a lot to the full power of the US military. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_CongressSpecifically Show nested quote +
*To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
*To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
So early on they thought of the militia as a regulated group of citizens that are funded and managed by the federal government. Over time, pro gun people have stripped those initial ideals into what we have today.
And in 1903, Congress declared that every male between 17 and 45 is to be deemed as part of the Militia.
What's your point?
You people claim that the Constitution is a living document and it needs to be modernized, but when we modernize our laws you instantly revert to something you can cling to in the Constitution as an unchanging fact and something we need to revert to again? Come on mang.
|
On April 23 2013 14:35 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:33 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Well it's funny then, that you got involved in an argument that was originally framed such that it was directed at those who hold the belief that gun control endangers the ability to resist the government/military. Which is exactly what my post I quoted right above you talks about. Do you seriously not even bother reading posts? Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:35 farvacola wrote:
You can paint the hyperbolic fantasy any which way you like, the image of a government kicking down your door or the continued overemphasis of "us vs them" are designed with only thing in mind: fear of something that is not yet manifested in reality. The hyperbolic fantasy is just that, a fantasy. And it will forever remain a fantasy, a horrific fantasy that should be avoided at all costs. However, the fact is it will no longer be an unachievable fantasy if the 2nd Amendment Rights are continuously infringed.
It was not always a fantasy. The Confederacy tried it. 500,000 dead Americans and several states burnt to the ground later, it was determined that the Federal Government is the sovereign, not the states.
|
On April 23 2013 14:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 12:35 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 11:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 10:54 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 10:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 10:23 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 10:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 09:34 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 08:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:15 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
And if the assailant covers his face with his arms, holds his breath, closes his eyes, and bull rushes the victim, the pepper spray suddenly becomes much less effective. Alternately, in a successful use of pepper spray sometimes the target lashes out violently which depending on the location could be a very big problem for the attempted rape victim.
Compare these two situations if a gun is used instead of pepper spray. Guns cannot easily be blocked, nor is a target as likely to remain a threat after being hit.
I'm not specifically advocating gun use in this situation... I'm just pointing out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for say, a small woman, to defend herself from a tough male.
[quote]
If you can get rushed before drawing the gun then you can also get rushed before drawing the pepper spray. Once again I'm not advocating gun use here, specifically. Bum rush means ANY and all restrained weapons are useless. This means that the only relevant weapon for self defense are weapons that have to be at the ready, safety off, weilded by someone already prepared to shoot/strike at any moment. Which do you think will lead to more accidental kills in these circumstances--guns, or pepper spray. Both are useless with the safety/cap on and both are even more useless in the purse/holster. So which one is preferred being pointed in public? Why are you completely missing my point? I'm just comparing the potential of different items for certain defensive purposes. Why are you asking me about what the public prefers or which leads to more accidental kills? In your hypothetical conjectures, I think it would be nice to also include some "what ifs" not in favor of carrying a gun. Example: Missing your target. A gun might kill an innocent bystander who wasn't visible to the shooter. Pepper spray does not create the risk of killing someone if it misses its target. Some Piers Morgan logic right there, and this just opens up a can of worms of even more hypotheticals I can counter your instance with. So the risk of someone having poor aim justifies me not being able to defend myself? I guess we need to ban cars because some people suck at driving and might run over people because they can't stay on the damn road. To use your own logic against you, what if guns get banned and someone who would have shot 12 kids in a school now decides to use a car to kill people, possibly running over 50 children playing in a playground? It's just pointless logic and it doesn't justify anything. Was I the one who started by raising hypothetical situations? No, so I'm not sure why you are attacking me and my "something to sound smart" logic. I noticed the one guy was saying, "well, see here's why pepper spray isn't as good as guns for preventing rape...pepper spray might miss the target's eyes, etc." To which I replied... "OK, let's be fair and think about the situations that could arise in which a gun would do more harm than good". Hopefully you understand now. I admit, I did chuckle a bit from your response I keep confusing people, sorry that was my mistake. On April 23 2013 10:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 10:09 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:17 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. if the rapist is armed he would have the advantage anyways in that kind of situation; besides exceptions can't be the base for deciding if people in general should be allowed to carry guns.
for example in my country (Italy) exceptions do exist and i'm fine with them exactly because precise requirements have to be met and i don't have to worry about the fact that in a car accident some random dude can freak out and pull a gun on me. Ugh please edit and fix your post because I was not the one who said the part in bold, I was the one who responded to it >_> As far as using pepper spray to stop a rapist? You have to be fucking kidding me, must be nice to live in such a closed society where pepper spray saves lives and prevents rapes. The real world envies you. If the man has a knife and the woman has pepper spray she would be extremely lucky if that is enough to subdue him. On April 23 2013 04:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 03:39 danl9rm wrote:
[quote]
That's way off the scope of what we were discussing. He said deserves. I said deserves. You're saying "what," as in, "what happened?"
I was using a hypothetical; I get to pick what happened. I'm using a hypothetical too. Is it okay for women to shoot men and simply say self defense. I mean sure, I hate rapists, and I would hate them more if they raped my mother, but does that mean murder is okay so long as I hate them? Like, say I hated black people as much as I hated rapists--does that make it okay to shoot black people? The truth is that its irrelevant how you feel about the situation, what matters is the evidence present. Like what if I'm a woman with a gun, I walk into an alley and see a known sex offender who I saw on TV and just shoot the guy on the spot. Am I a hero? What if its someone that looked like the sex offender on TV? Am I still a hero? What if I just thought it was a sex offender or a scary looking dude that might rape me--if I shoot him am I still a hero? Or maybe the fact that we already criminalize rape shows that we don't need guns "just in case" rape happens. The fact that you hate them is irrelevant, what an absurd assumption of anyone's position on the matter. The fact that they rapd somebody is why it would be okay to murder them (in my opinion). You're hypothetical scenario where a woman has a gun and walks into an alley and sees a known sex offender from tv is even MORE absurd. If she shoots a man she thinks is a sex offender she is a murderer. If he tries to rape her and she kills him then she would be a hero. Guns can be used for self defense, be it attempted rape or attempted murder. Just because we criminalize rape doesn't mean we should take away anyone's abilities to take matters in their own hands and defend themselves. As far as the outcome after a woman shoots someone who attempts to rape her, obviously she would go to trial for murder and plead self-defense. If it is proven without a shadow of a doubt that there was no rape attempt and she murdered him, then she deserves to be charged with murder. If it was proven she did it in self-defense, then she doesn't get charged. How much time must the woman give to the attacker before it's no longer murder? Once he's about 10 feet away (or the length of a standard sized room) she's already too late and is now raped before she can pull out her gun. So she either shoots him when he's in the other room or waits until he's already on top of her--in which case her gun is useless and most likely will be used against her. Such black and white logic is useless. She could pull the gun on him if he approaches her in a threatening manner, hopefully this is enough to stop him and the entire attack is prevented. If he pulls a gun on her, shooting him is now justified as her life was in danger. If he pulls a knife or other weapon and charges her, she is also justified in shooting him. If they both end up on the ground with him on top of her, if possible to access her gun and shoot him, she is, again, justified in shooting him. It isn't just as simple as well she either shoots him from 10 feet away or she is raped. Anything can happen. Why can't you just use common sense (common sense being that there are more than 2 or 3 possible outcomes in any dangerous situation) and look at any instance of self-defense and apply it to this type of scenario? I apologize for not making example black and white enough, because according to Rhino85 On April 23 2013 09:35 Rhino85 wrote:
In my CHL (concealed handgun license) class the instructor said that at 21 feet an attacker can close the distance by the time you draw your weapon out. So if you're unsure of a situation do your best to keep further away then that. Obviously if someone surprises you there isn't much that you can do about it. But if you give me a choice of being jumped and having pepper spray or a handgun to defend myself, I'll take the handgun every time. 21 feet is the distance someone can close before you can pull your gun so you'll have to decide to shoot them from about 22 feet away or you just don't have time to actually pull out the gun. If he pulls out a gun before she does she's already dead by time she's trying to flip the safety. If he has a knife she's already gutted by the time she's reached in her purse. Now in that scenario I'd rather have a gun than pepper spray--mostly because at least a gun can be used as a club. At that point I'd be happy with a flashlight, a cane, a rock, etc.... And this is when I just use common sense. If you're in the same room as another person, you don't have enough time to pull out the gun unless you already are pulling out your gun. If you're pulling out your gun before they charge you then you're a murderer with intent, if you try to pull out the gun before they charge you then it's too late. Assuming she doesn't pull out the gun, miss, and then have the gun taken from her and now she's raped at gun point and then shot afterwards. She could also reach for her gun and in her panic forgetting to take off the safety in which case the attacker takes the gun and beats her to death with it. So many possible scenarios both good and bad! A lot of scenarios where the person has to preemptively pull the gun on someone before danger is present as well. I mean, if we're going to base gun control on whether women should shoot possible racists, these are things we need to talk about. Or we could just look at the 2008 Supreme Court case and then keep the discussion about property rights. It is only one reason why gun control will backfire if it's goals are to prevent violent crimes. Self-defense, the fact that you don't have any good reasons why to take them away, and the reasons the 2nd amendment was created are pretty solid arguments for why gun control is a bad idea. Self defense is a terrible reason against gun control. There are MANY forms of self defense that don't include guns--guns are simply one of the many forms of self defense. The 2nd Amendment is also a terrible "argument" against gun control because, taken literally, it says (very specifically) "REGULATED militia." In other words, the 2nd word of the 2nd amendment is regulation ie--the 2nd amendment does not prevent gun control if read literally. The reason it is used against gun control is recent and old interpretations of the sentence with the understanding that taking it literally would produce an amendment that both allowed ownership of guns as well as allowed heavy regulation of guns. The 2008 case (Heller I think) made it so that the *current* (but not only) reading of the amendment to be an emphasis on the word *infringe* instead of placing emphasis on the word *regulated;* but this is merely a recent interpretation of the law and it might change in the future as well. So no, "self defense" and "2nd Amendment" is a terrible argument against gun control. The right to property ownership unproven to be any more dangerous than most household products is a more appropriate and fitting argument against gun control. When people stop dying to hammers more often than they die to sniper rifles--then you can argue that sniper rifles need to jump ahead of the line of dangerous property items that need regulation. You have this weird confidence in your post like you're speaking with some authority on the correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The SCOTUS disagrees with you, basic grammar disagrees with you. There is absolutely no evidence that you give (beacuse it doesn't exist) that the right to bear arms hinges on any militia requirement. Also it you are trying to go on a bend about the "regulated" requirement it would be the third word not the second. Just small potatoes but I don't get were you got that part of your arugment either. I literally said the Supreme Court made a ruling siding with emphasizing *infringe* instead of emphasizing *regulated* I even said what date and what case it was that they specifically said it on. What I was saying is that we as a nation currently choose to ignore *regulated* and emphasize *infringe*, this is a recent stance (2008) and not some long standing statement. It is possible that a more liberal court will side against this ruling 100 years from now, it's also possible they won't. In any course of the matter, the evidence is very plain that a regulated militia is what the Amendment talks about--because it *literally* says it verbatim. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That is the clause. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.That is what hinges on the clause. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That is the central point of the clause. Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #29. ("If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security") So no, the supreme court hinging on *infringe* instead of Regulated is only the current reading of the amendment and not the *only* reading of the amendment. Which is what I said. I do not like guns, I think they are dangerous and I think they need heavy regulations. Much like cars have heavy regulations. Cars have age restrictions, regular renewals of licenses, police patrols checking for licenses, heavy fines for minor infractions of vehicle use, ability for the city to simply impound and take your car from you. If gun laws were as strict as car laws people would not be so upset about gun laws. BUT I am very much against the idea of federal control of private property. And much like I would hate the government telling me how many DVD's I can or can't own I don't like the idea of the government telling me how many guns I can or can't own. Now if the gun really is dangerous--then yes put restrictions on it. But prove it kills more people than hammers, sofas, pet dogs, peanut butter, and staircases before you put restriction on it. Not because its protected by the 2nd amendment, but because if you're honestly passing laws for safety and not for political gain--then restrict the more dangerous objects first.
Its set up that way so that the well regulated militia won't infringe on our right to bear arms. It doesn't hinge on anything. It literally doesn't read that the right to bear arms is some uninfrigeable right, only that the "well regulated Militia being important to a free state" can't infringe on that right.
And finally now your fear of guns and your ignorance of gun laws comes out. You are not banned in any way from buying any sort of car as long as you have the money. The government won't say you can buy this car but not that car only because one car may not be safe as it is the government won't allow someone to buy a defective car they won't allow someone to buy a defective gun. They don't regulate the cars themselves they regulate the driving of them on the road. You can own all the cars you want and drive them all you want on your own property and there is nothing that the government will do to stop you.
I don't know who gave you this weird comparison of how car laws is somehow any different to gun laws or how cars are heavily regulated but they lied to you and you should get your money back.
|
On April 23 2013 14:45 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 14:30 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 14:29 Fruscainte wrote:On April 23 2013 14:24 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 14:22 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 14:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 14:15 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 14:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 14:02 Wombat_NI wrote:
Oh you're so restrained and full of poise by not responding.
1. Why would the military/government impose such a tyranny, realistically? What kind of hypothetical tyranny are we even talking about?
2. The military are made up of citizens, why would they all decide to join it in sufficient numbers to subjugate the civilian populace?
3. If this eventuality DID happen, what the hell are citizens going to be able to do to it?
4. Why have the US military cut manpower (according to you?) Could it be to do with the increasing use of drones and other similar unmanned vehicles and other things like that?
Simply going 'guerrilla warfare' as if it's some kind of foolproof method is ridiculous. The US has a varied environment for sure. I swear you two remind me of those people who plan for a zombie apocalype. I find it hard to tell if you think it will happen, or just enjoy theorycrafting how it would go. The two are both about as likely to happen. Pretty sure you weren't responding to me, but I wanted to clarify for you anyway, on why I brought up the Scalia guns vs. US military thing: The point of theory crafting about a tyrannical US government hell bent on engaging armed pockets of US civilians was to show in a very basic way that the presence of rifles and handguns would mean absolutely nothing given that the military possess the means by which to overcome these obsolete weapons quite easily (re: drones, guided missiles, precision bombing, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc). The point was absolutely not to focus on whether or not it could happen -- something Serm and Frus wanted to attack (we call this strawman arguing :D). Frankly, any relatively sane person should understand that it is highly unlikely to ever see a murderous US dictatorship that would murder its own civilians. Rifles and handguns would mean a lot in any resistance. Cite a successful resistance of a modern dictatorship by civilians armed with small arms, and without access to foreign military aid. "Would mean a lot" is awfully subjective. Scalia thinks that they would not overcome a modern military, so I would like to politely request that you explain to me why this is wrong. Not from your imagination, but with real examples, please. Cite a non successful resistance of a modern dictatorship by civilians arms with small arms and without access to foreign military aid. I can literally do that because you just ignored my entire post except for one line about an example that you brought up originally. Do you have anything backing up your point at all or are you just looking to paint me as a crazy redneck afraid of the government? Kuwait edit: literally 2.8 million population in an area smaller than almost every State alone compared to 300 million population with some of the most square miles in any country in the world. I love apples man, especially when compared to other apples. Lol. Solid argument. I concede. Gun control is bad because we need guns to fight the government in case it attacks us, since as Serm says, handguns and rifles, like, would probably do a lot to the full power of the US military. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_CongressSpecifically
*To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
*To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
So early on they thought of the militia as a regulated group of citizens that are funded and managed by the federal government. Over time, pro gun people have stripped those initial ideals into what we have today. And in 1903, Congress declared that every male between 17 and 45 is to be deemed as part of the Militia. What's your point? You people claim that the Constitution is a living document and it needs to be modernized, but when we modernize our laws you instantly revert to something you can cling to in the Constitution as an unchanging fact and something we need to revert to again? Come on mang.
No, don't get me wrong, the person I'm in agreement that its a ever changing manuscript. I'm showing how it was read as pro-regulation early on, and it's being read as anti-regulation currently. And in a hundred or so years it might go back to being pro-regulation. The 2nd amendment only makes clear 1 thing--that guns can't be banned outright. How much regulation is allowed on guns changes over time. At one point the government literally determined what and when you got guns and now we can't even regulate magazine size. In future who knows, maybe you need to get a federal licence to even own a gun, or maybe we topple the regime and are now in a Fallout society stealing food from each other with our guns. Anything is possible.
What I was talking about in the previous page is that simply sticking to the existence of the 2nd amendment is not in itself a valid argument against gun control--being aware of current trends in gun control is. According to the 2008 Heller case and the 2010 Mcdonald Case--gun advocates win and we can't pass more laws. Until we get another case in front of the supreme court arguing over whether guns should or shouldn't be in the US is moot since it was already decided.
|
On April 23 2013 14:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 23 2013 12:35 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 11:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 10:54 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 10:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 10:23 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 10:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 09:34 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 08:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:15 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 08:07 Warheart wrote:
[quote]
if you get sprayed in the face you won't be in the mood of raping people for a good while: " It causes immediate closing of the eyes, difficulty breathing, runny nose, and coughing. The duration of its effects depends on the strength of the spray but the average full effect lasts around thirty to forty-five minutes, with diminished effects lasting for hours"
in short it means that you can have all the time to escape and call for help And if the assailant covers his face with his arms, holds his breath, closes his eyes, and bull rushes the victim, the pepper spray suddenly becomes much less effective. Alternately, in a successful use of pepper spray sometimes the target lashes out violently which depending on the location could be a very big problem for the attempted rape victim. Compare these two situations if a gun is used instead of pepper spray. Guns cannot easily be blocked, nor is a target as likely to remain a threat after being hit. I'm not specifically advocating gun use in this situation... I'm just pointing out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for say, a small woman, to defend herself from a tough male. On April 23 2013 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Can't you just bum rush a person that is 13 feet away or less before they can pull out a gun? By that standard, anything less than a weapon you can already have up and ready is useless to sneak attacks making pepper spray and its ilk the only valid forms of self defense unless you're okay having everyone carrying guns out by hand, safety off and at the ready. If you can get rushed before drawing the gun then you can also get rushed before drawing the pepper spray. Once again I'm not advocating gun use here, specifically. Bum rush means ANY and all restrained weapons are useless. This means that the only relevant weapon for self defense are weapons that have to be at the ready, safety off, weilded by someone already prepared to shoot/strike at any moment. Which do you think will lead to more accidental kills in these circumstances--guns, or pepper spray. Both are useless with the safety/cap on and both are even more useless in the purse/holster. So which one is preferred being pointed in public? Why are you completely missing my point? I'm just comparing the potential of different items for certain defensive purposes. Why are you asking me about what the public prefers or which leads to more accidental kills? In your hypothetical conjectures, I think it would be nice to also include some "what ifs" not in favor of carrying a gun. Example: Missing your target. A gun might kill an innocent bystander who wasn't visible to the shooter. Pepper spray does not create the risk of killing someone if it misses its target. Some Piers Morgan logic right there, and this just opens up a can of worms of even more hypotheticals I can counter your instance with. So the risk of someone having poor aim justifies me not being able to defend myself? I guess we need to ban cars because some people suck at driving and might run over people because they can't stay on the damn road. To use your own logic against you, what if guns get banned and someone who would have shot 12 kids in a school now decides to use a car to kill people, possibly running over 50 children playing in a playground? It's just pointless logic and it doesn't justify anything. Was I the one who started by raising hypothetical situations? No, so I'm not sure why you are attacking me and my "something to sound smart" logic. I noticed the one guy was saying, "well, see here's why pepper spray isn't as good as guns for preventing rape...pepper spray might miss the target's eyes, etc." To which I replied... "OK, let's be fair and think about the situations that could arise in which a gun would do more harm than good". Hopefully you understand now. I admit, I did chuckle a bit from your response I keep confusing people, sorry that was my mistake. On April 23 2013 10:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 10:09 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:17 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. if the rapist is armed he would have the advantage anyways in that kind of situation; besides exceptions can't be the base for deciding if people in general should be allowed to carry guns.
for example in my country (Italy) exceptions do exist and i'm fine with them exactly because precise requirements have to be met and i don't have to worry about the fact that in a car accident some random dude can freak out and pull a gun on me. Ugh please edit and fix your post because I was not the one who said the part in bold, I was the one who responded to it >_> As far as using pepper spray to stop a rapist? You have to be fucking kidding me, must be nice to live in such a closed society where pepper spray saves lives and prevents rapes. The real world envies you. If the man has a knife and the woman has pepper spray she would be extremely lucky if that is enough to subdue him. On April 23 2013 04:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 03:39 danl9rm wrote:On April 23 2013 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Police enters room, sees dead guy and a woman with a gun.
She says: "He tried to rape me"
Did he or didn't he? That's way off the scope of what we were discussing. He said deserves. I said deserves. You're saying "what," as in, "what happened?" I was using a hypothetical; I get to pick what happened. I'm using a hypothetical too. Is it okay for women to shoot men and simply say self defense. I mean sure, I hate rapists, and I would hate them more if they raped my mother, but does that mean murder is okay so long as I hate them? Like, say I hated black people as much as I hated rapists--does that make it okay to shoot black people? The truth is that its irrelevant how you feel about the situation, what matters is the evidence present. Like what if I'm a woman with a gun, I walk into an alley and see a known sex offender who I saw on TV and just shoot the guy on the spot. Am I a hero? What if its someone that looked like the sex offender on TV? Am I still a hero? What if I just thought it was a sex offender or a scary looking dude that might rape me--if I shoot him am I still a hero? Or maybe the fact that we already criminalize rape shows that we don't need guns "just in case" rape happens. The fact that you hate them is irrelevant, what an absurd assumption of anyone's position on the matter. The fact that they rapd somebody is why it would be okay to murder them (in my opinion). You're hypothetical scenario where a woman has a gun and walks into an alley and sees a known sex offender from tv is even MORE absurd. If she shoots a man she thinks is a sex offender she is a murderer. If he tries to rape her and she kills him then she would be a hero. Guns can be used for self defense, be it attempted rape or attempted murder. Just because we criminalize rape doesn't mean we should take away anyone's abilities to take matters in their own hands and defend themselves. As far as the outcome after a woman shoots someone who attempts to rape her, obviously she would go to trial for murder and plead self-defense. If it is proven without a shadow of a doubt that there was no rape attempt and she murdered him, then she deserves to be charged with murder. If it was proven she did it in self-defense, then she doesn't get charged. How much time must the woman give to the attacker before it's no longer murder? Once he's about 10 feet away (or the length of a standard sized room) she's already too late and is now raped before she can pull out her gun. So she either shoots him when he's in the other room or waits until he's already on top of her--in which case her gun is useless and most likely will be used against her. Such black and white logic is useless. She could pull the gun on him if he approaches her in a threatening manner, hopefully this is enough to stop him and the entire attack is prevented. If he pulls a gun on her, shooting him is now justified as her life was in danger. If he pulls a knife or other weapon and charges her, she is also justified in shooting him. If they both end up on the ground with him on top of her, if possible to access her gun and shoot him, she is, again, justified in shooting him. It isn't just as simple as well she either shoots him from 10 feet away or she is raped. Anything can happen. Why can't you just use common sense (common sense being that there are more than 2 or 3 possible outcomes in any dangerous situation) and look at any instance of self-defense and apply it to this type of scenario? I apologize for not making example black and white enough, because according to Rhino85 On April 23 2013 09:35 Rhino85 wrote:
In my CHL (concealed handgun license) class the instructor said that at 21 feet an attacker can close the distance by the time you draw your weapon out. So if you're unsure of a situation do your best to keep further away then that. Obviously if someone surprises you there isn't much that you can do about it. But if you give me a choice of being jumped and having pepper spray or a handgun to defend myself, I'll take the handgun every time. 21 feet is the distance someone can close before you can pull your gun so you'll have to decide to shoot them from about 22 feet away or you just don't have time to actually pull out the gun. If he pulls out a gun before she does she's already dead by time she's trying to flip the safety. If he has a knife she's already gutted by the time she's reached in her purse. Now in that scenario I'd rather have a gun than pepper spray--mostly because at least a gun can be used as a club. At that point I'd be happy with a flashlight, a cane, a rock, etc.... And this is when I just use common sense. If you're in the same room as another person, you don't have enough time to pull out the gun unless you already are pulling out your gun. If you're pulling out your gun before they charge you then you're a murderer with intent, if you try to pull out the gun before they charge you then it's too late. Assuming she doesn't pull out the gun, miss, and then have the gun taken from her and now she's raped at gun point and then shot afterwards. She could also reach for her gun and in her panic forgetting to take off the safety in which case the attacker takes the gun and beats her to death with it. So many possible scenarios both good and bad! A lot of scenarios where the person has to preemptively pull the gun on someone before danger is present as well. I mean, if we're going to base gun control on whether women should shoot possible racists, these are things we need to talk about. Or we could just look at the 2008 Supreme Court case and then keep the discussion about property rights. It is only one reason why gun control will backfire if it's goals are to prevent violent crimes. Self-defense, the fact that you don't have any good reasons why to take them away, and the reasons the 2nd amendment was created are pretty solid arguments for why gun control is a bad idea. Self defense is a terrible reason against gun control. There are MANY forms of self defense that don't include guns--guns are simply one of the many forms of self defense. The 2nd Amendment is also a terrible "argument" against gun control because, taken literally, it says (very specifically) "REGULATED militia." In other words, the 2nd word of the 2nd amendment is regulation ie--the 2nd amendment does not prevent gun control if read literally. The reason it is used against gun control is recent and old interpretations of the sentence with the understanding that taking it literally would produce an amendment that both allowed ownership of guns as well as allowed heavy regulation of guns. The 2008 case (Heller I think) made it so that the *current* (but not only) reading of the amendment to be an emphasis on the word *infringe* instead of placing emphasis on the word *regulated;* but this is merely a recent interpretation of the law and it might change in the future as well. So no, "self defense" and "2nd Amendment" is a terrible argument against gun control. The right to property ownership unproven to be any more dangerous than most household products is a more appropriate and fitting argument against gun control. When people stop dying to hammers more often than they die to sniper rifles--then you can argue that sniper rifles need to jump ahead of the line of dangerous property items that need regulation. You have this weird confidence in your post like you're speaking with some authority on the correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The SCOTUS disagrees with you, basic grammar disagrees with you. There is absolutely no evidence that you give (beacuse it doesn't exist) that the right to bear arms hinges on any militia requirement. Also it you are trying to go on a bend about the "regulated" requirement it would be the third word not the second. Just small potatoes but I don't get were you got that part of your arugment either. I literally said the Supreme Court made a ruling siding with emphasizing *infringe* instead of emphasizing *regulated* I even said what date and what case it was that they specifically said it on. What I was saying is that we as a nation currently choose to ignore *regulated* and emphasize *infringe*, this is a recent stance (2008) and not some long standing statement. It is possible that a more liberal court will side against this ruling 100 years from now, it's also possible they won't. In any course of the matter, the evidence is very plain that a regulated militia is what the Amendment talks about--because it *literally* says it verbatim. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That is the clause. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.That is what hinges on the clause. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That is the central point of the clause. Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #29. ("If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security") So no, the supreme court hinging on *infringe* instead of Regulated is only the current reading of the amendment and not the *only* reading of the amendment. Which is what I said. I do not like guns, I think they are dangerous and I think they need heavy regulations. Much like cars have heavy regulations. Cars have age restrictions, regular renewals of licenses, police patrols checking for licenses, heavy fines for minor infractions of vehicle use, ability for the city to simply impound and take your car from you. If gun laws were as strict as car laws people would not be so upset about gun laws. BUT I am very much against the idea of federal control of private property. And much like I would hate the government telling me how many DVD's I can or can't own I don't like the idea of the government telling me how many guns I can or can't own. Now if the gun really is dangerous--then yes put restrictions on it. But prove it kills more people than hammers, sofas, pet dogs, peanut butter, and staircases before you put restriction on it. Not because its protected by the 2nd amendment, but because if you're honestly passing laws for safety and not for political gain--then restrict the more dangerous objects first.
Guns have a special utility in killing people, and are optimized for it. As such, they don't need to kill more than the other items listed to be worthy of enhanced regulations. Cars, dogs, peanut butter, hammers, do kill people. But guns have a unique capacity for doing efficiently. In addition, guns have little utility outside of killing. What is hunting and self defense, if not killing? Cars get us places. Dogs are fun pets. Peanut butter is for eating. And hammers smash in nails. Though the other objects can be used for killing, would you really want them over a gun when killing time came?
In addition, how many people can you realistically kill on a murder spree with a car or hammer? Guns are proven effective at causing mass casualties (Nidal Hassan, 17 kills, 30+ wounded from two magazines out of his FiveSeveN against men trained at dealing with being shot at). This effectiveness in the hands of evil men warrants special regulations, even if guns killed less than the other objects.
|
Ah, bit off the immediate topic going on between you two, but now that we're comparing the gun issue with a car analogy... I'd like to chime in! With cars, each owner must register in order for it to be legal to drive. With gun use...what if we required owners to register them too? I'm eager to learn why this would be a bad idea, apart from what I already read from one guy who was speculating: that it's not a good idea because in his opinion, it is possible that an arbitrary percentage (forgot what the number he chose was) of people would not register, and would thereby cause a sudden increase in lawbreakers among our citizens.
On April 23 2013 14:58 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Yes, literally. You literally won this debate, I concede. Literally! I was literally worried there for a moment that you had mindfucked me
Ya literally man 
|
On April 23 2013 14:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Yes, literally. You literally won this debate, I concede. Literally!
I was literally worried there for a moment that you had mindfucked me in some perverse way into me being the guy who was proposing this hyperbolic fantasy of a government kicking down my door with some continued overemphasis of "us vs them" being designed with only thing in mind: fear of something that is not yet manifested in reality.
You literally had me worried there for a moment. The SCOTUS has been hinting recently that the conservative side wants to bring gun control back up which probably means that they have the votes to turn back the tide even more.
But in all seriousness I agree with your last post almost entirely. The 2nd amendment in itself is only relevant when it comes to the SCOTUS deciding if its constitutional or not. And even then I'd be dammed if I understood have the breifs that came out of there about it.
On April 23 2013 14:56 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Ah, bit off the immediate topic going on between you two, but now that we're comparing the gun issue with a car analogy... I'd like to chime in! With cars, each owner must register in order for it to be legal to drive. With gun use...what if we required owners to register them too? I'm eager to learn why this would be a bad idea, apart from what I already read from one guy who was speculating: that it's not a good idea because in his opinion, it is possible that an arbitrary percentage (forgot what the number he chose was) of people would not register, and would thereby cause a sudden increase in lawbreakers among our citizens.
Hitler via Norway in WW2 and Australia a few years ago. The only things a national gun registry would be used for is to confiscate them when the government feels like doing it.
On the other hand if you told me that I can use my gun in public around tons of other people all the time if I merely registered it with the government I'd look at you pretty funny. Literaly.
|
On April 23 2013 14:56 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Ah, bit off the immediate topic going on between you two, but now that we're comparing the gun issue with a car analogy... I'd like to chime in! With cars, each owner must register in order for it to be legal to drive. With gun use...what if we required owners to register them too? I'm eager to learn why this would be a bad idea, apart from what I already read from one guy who was speculating: that it's not a good idea because in his opinion, it is possible that an arbitrary percentage (forgot what the number he chose was) of people would not register, and would thereby cause a sudden increase in lawbreakers among our citizens.
Yeah... Cars are very dangerous and so it has a lot of regulations.
-You need to register it and then renew the registration yearly.
-You are required to insure it and whenever you're stopped by the cops they check your current insurance in order for liability to have a paper trail.
-highway patrol is literally a subdivision of law enforcement in place to keep track of and regulate drivers of vehicles
-urban planning is literally design with cars in mind as city policy is centered on maximizing safety in things like stop lights, signs, painted lanes, etc...
-to move around with a car you are required to carry you paperwork and the police are free to pull you over at anytime to check your papers.
Could you imagine those kind of laws for guns?
|
On April 23 2013 14:58 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Yes, literally. You literally won this debate, I concede. Literally! I was literally worried there for a moment that you had mindfucked me in some perverse way into me being the guy who was proposing this hyperbolic fantasy of a government kicking down my door with some continued overemphasis of "us vs them" being designed with only thing in mind: fear of something that is not yet manifested in reality. You literally had me worried there for a moment. The SCOTUS has been hinting recently that the conservative side wants to bring gun control back up which probably means that they have the votes to turn back the tide even more. But in all seriousness I agree with your last post almost entirely. The 2nd amendment in itself is only relevant when it comes to the SCOTUS deciding if its constitutional or not. And even then I'd be dammed if I understood have the breifs that came out of there about it. Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:56 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Ah, bit off the immediate topic going on between you two, but now that we're comparing the gun issue with a car analogy... I'd like to chime in! With cars, each owner must register in order for it to be legal to drive. With gun use...what if we required owners to register them too? I'm eager to learn why this would be a bad idea, apart from what I already read from one guy who was speculating: that it's not a good idea because in his opinion, it is possible that an arbitrary percentage (forgot what the number he chose was) of people would not register, and would thereby cause a sudden increase in lawbreakers among our citizens. Hitler via Norway in WW2 and Australia a few years ago. The only things a national gun registry would be used for is to confiscate them when the government feels like doing it. On the other hand if you told me that I can use my gun in public around tons of other people all the time if I merely registered it with the government I'd look at you pretty funny. Literaly.
Haha. Is the ability for the government to confiscate our cars when they decide they want to ban cars the only reason for car registry? I think this is more realistic: A chief reason you are required to register your car is so that your misuse of your car may be easily tracked back to you.
|
On April 23 2013 14:58 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Yes, literally. You literally won this debate, I concede. Literally! I was literally worried there for a moment that you had mindfucked me in some perverse way into me being the guy who was proposing this hyperbolic fantasy of a government kicking down my door with some continued overemphasis of "us vs them" being designed with only thing in mind: fear of something that is not yet manifested in reality. You literally had me worried there for a moment. The SCOTUS has been hinting recently that the conservative side wants to bring gun control back up which probably means that they have the votes to turn back the tide even more. But in all seriousness I agree with your last post almost entirely. The 2nd amendment in itself is only relevant when it comes to the SCOTUS deciding if its constitutional or not. And even then I'd be dammed if I understood have the breifs that came out of there about it. Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:56 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Ah, bit off the immediate topic going on between you two, but now that we're comparing the gun issue with a car analogy... I'd like to chime in! With cars, each owner must register in order for it to be legal to drive. With gun use...what if we required owners to register them too? I'm eager to learn why this would be a bad idea, apart from what I already read from one guy who was speculating: that it's not a good idea because in his opinion, it is possible that an arbitrary percentage (forgot what the number he chose was) of people would not register, and would thereby cause a sudden increase in lawbreakers among our citizens. Hitler via Norway in WW2 and Australia a few years ago. The only things a national gun registry would be used for is to confiscate them when the government feels like doing it. On the other hand if you told me that I can use my gun in public around tons of other people all the time if I merely registered it with the government I'd look at you pretty funny. Literaly.
Would you have to go to a DMV for guns, pass a written and field test beside a federal employee and if you make any mistake at all during the process you fail? Also your required to register and renew your register yearly and you only have a license to use it for a short amount of time after which you renew that license while also giving the police permissions to check your license whenever they feel like?
Then yeah, I'd be more comfortable with guns if they were treated as badly as cars are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
