|
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 May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa?
To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying.
|
On May 21 2013 07:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? I'm not going to be some pussy and jet on my country just because the government is being a major asshole. Also I'm one of the 99%, I can't afford to move anywhere much less to Canada at the moment.
If you sell everything you have you can make more money than a plane ticket to a 3rd world country. And the excess cash is more than enough to live work free for several years. During that time you get a job at that third world country with more education than anyone else--and rise the ranks quicker and easier than staying in the US.
Financially speaking of course.
|
On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying.
He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule.
|
On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule.
I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting.
|
On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule.
And you are further de-railing the thread with the same childish point, still waiting for your explanation of why you think there is anything unclear about "shall not be infringed" and what is concrete and detailed about "regulated militia". What are all of the specific details about this well regulated militia? How many people? How many guns? What guns should be in it? Obviously its concrete to you so what are the specifics? What could "shall not be infringed" possibly mean besides don't infringe?
The "why don't you go to Canada" troll-baitish idiotic remark is completely logically flawed. If people are unhappy with our gun laws why don't they leave? Maybe because the good in the country outweighs the policy they disagree with? Where is the United States of America that is impervious to tyranny? It doesn't fucking exist, so there isn't one to move to.
|
On May 21 2013 07:41 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. And you are further de-railing the thread with the same childish point, still waiting for your explanation of why you think there is anything unclear about "shall not be infringed" and what is concrete and detailed about "regulated militia". What are all of the specific details about this well regulated militia? How many people? How many guns? What guns should be in it? Obviously its concrete to you so what are the specifics? What could "shall not be infringed" possibly mean besides don't infringe?
A militia is a group of people--otherwise it would say person.
Regulated means regulations are enforced--tautologically speaking.
In other words, people need to be regulated.
|
On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule.
I think its probably because he doesn't think the situation has gotten that bad yet, and also because he lives there and its kind of hard to just get up and leave the place you were born. Plus there are probably lots of other great aspects of living in America that balance it out. I think he's just saying that generally speaking, seeing what the government is up to, it behooves us to keep access to guns in case anything gets worse.
|
On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting.
He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point.
If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical--why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking?
I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country.
|
On May 21 2013 07:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:41 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. And you are further de-railing the thread with the same childish point, still waiting for your explanation of why you think there is anything unclear about "shall not be infringed" and what is concrete and detailed about "regulated militia". What are all of the specific details about this well regulated militia? How many people? How many guns? What guns should be in it? Obviously its concrete to you so what are the specifics? What could "shall not be infringed" possibly mean besides don't infringe? A militia is a group of people--otherwise it would say person. Regulated means regulations are enforced--tautologically speaking. In other words, people need to be regulated.
Ok and that's all it says, it doesn't say HOW we regulate it: hence it is not concrete or specific.
As far as shall not be infringed, do you think that is unclear?
On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical--why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country.
No it isn't a valid point. The United States is far safer than most countries from tyranny because of our Constitution. He never said the United States is about to become a tyranny, he said we need to preserve the 2nd amendment so it doesn't get to that point.
I'm done talking about this point because if you have to resort to telling someone to moving to Canada obviously your logic speaks for itself and isn't worth giving even as much attention as it already has been given.
|
On May 21 2013 07:44 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I think its probably because he doesn't think the situation has gotten that bad yet, and also because he lives there and its kind of hard to just get up and leave the place you were born. Plus there are probably lots of other great aspects of living in America that balance it out. I think he's just saying that generally speaking, seeing what the government is up to, it behooves us to keep access to guns in case anything gets worse.
I don't mind people owning things I disagree with, and I also don't mind people that don't think this country is that bad. But the people in this thread are arguing for protection from walking on sidewalks and preventing tyrannical rule. Which is why I consider the question valid (within the scope of this thread) because financially speaking, it's very affordable for a 1st world citizen to sell everything and move to a third world country.
|
On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical-- why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country.
See, this is absurd. We don't believe the country is going to fall to tyranny (most of us don't, Alex Jones is a pretty small minority), but we still like having the ability to do something about it in the event that it happens.
Do you think you're going to be in a car wreck? No? Then why do you prefer to have airbags?
Edit: I'm not arguing about carry rights, just possession rights. I am perfectly OK with the government regulating publicly carrying guns. I would prefer if they didn't, but I'm not going to say they have no right to. Because the only part of gun-rights I really care about is the defense against tyranny, and you can do that with or without open carry rights. If its gotten bad enough that you're going to shoot a tyrant's thugs, you probably don't care that carrying that gun is illegal.
|
On May 21 2013 07:48 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:41 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. And you are further de-railing the thread with the same childish point, still waiting for your explanation of why you think there is anything unclear about "shall not be infringed" and what is concrete and detailed about "regulated militia". What are all of the specific details about this well regulated militia? How many people? How many guns? What guns should be in it? Obviously its concrete to you so what are the specifics? What could "shall not be infringed" possibly mean besides don't infringe? A militia is a group of people--otherwise it would say person. Regulated means regulations are enforced--tautologically speaking. In other words, people need to be regulated. Ok and that's all it says, it doesn't say HOW we regulate it: hence it is not concrete or specific. As far as shall not be infringed, do you think that is unclear? Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical--why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country. No it isn't a valid point. The United States is far safer than most countries from tyranny because of our Constitution. He never said the United States is about to become a tyranny, he said we need to preserve the 2nd amendment so it doesn't get to that point.
It does say specifically "Well regulated" which is the opposite of no regulations and counter intuitive to minimal regulation. Technically speaking, it means slightly below over regulation.
It then also states that it is the militia that is important to the defense of the state--the arming and bearing added in last as a way to augment said militia.
In other words, militias need to be armed, and they need to be well regulated. That is, if you want to stick to the exact words of the amendment. You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others.
Also, on the tyranny thing, you can't have it both ways.
If you are scared enough to need guns to stop it, then you don't feel safe.
If you do feel safe, then why the hell would you want guns to stop something you don't think is coming?
I wouldn't point a gun at a random guy on the street and say to him "don't take it personal, just being safe you know." You're either scared of something or you're not. Now, you can enjoy having guns and become so stubborn in a debate you're willing to bring up points you don't really believe in just to prove a point--that would be a very internet forum reader way of dealing with things. Is that more accurate to your stance?
|
On May 21 2013 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:48 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:41 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. And you are further de-railing the thread with the same childish point, still waiting for your explanation of why you think there is anything unclear about "shall not be infringed" and what is concrete and detailed about "regulated militia". What are all of the specific details about this well regulated militia? How many people? How many guns? What guns should be in it? Obviously its concrete to you so what are the specifics? What could "shall not be infringed" possibly mean besides don't infringe? A militia is a group of people--otherwise it would say person. Regulated means regulations are enforced--tautologically speaking. In other words, people need to be regulated. Ok and that's all it says, it doesn't say HOW we regulate it: hence it is not concrete or specific. As far as shall not be infringed, do you think that is unclear? On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical--why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country. No it isn't a valid point. The United States is far safer than most countries from tyranny because of our Constitution. He never said the United States is about to become a tyranny, he said we need to preserve the 2nd amendment so it doesn't get to that point. It does say specifically "Well regulated" which is the opposite of no regulations and counter intuitive to minimal regulation. Technically speaking, it means slightly below over regulation. It then also states that it is the militia that is important to the defense of the state--the arming and bearing added in last as a way to augment said militia. In other words, militias need to be armed, and they need to be well regulated. That is, if you want to stick to the exact words of the amendment. You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others. Also, on the tyranny thing, you can't have it both ways. If you are scared enough to need guns to stop it, then you don't feel safe. If you do feel safe, then why the hell would you want guns to stop something you don't think is coming? I wouldn't point a gun at a random guy on the street and say to him "don't take it personal, just being safe you know." You're either scared of something or you're not. Now, you can enjoy having guns and become so stubborn in a debate you're willing to bring up points you don't really believe in just to prove a point--that would be a very internet forum reader way of dealing with things. Is that more accurate to your stance?
Do you think you're going to get in a car crash? No? Then why do you prefer to have airbags? If you're scared enough to need airbags, then you don't feel safe.
|
On May 21 2013 07:52 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical-- why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country. See, this is absurd. We don't believe the country is going to fall to tyranny (most of us don't, Alex Jones is a pretty small minority), but we still like having the ability to do something about it in the event that it happens. Do you think you're going to be in a car wreck? No? Then why do you prefer to have airbags? Edit: I'm not arguing about carry rights, just possession rights. I am perfectly OK with the government regulating publicly carrying guns. I would prefer if they didn't, but I'm not going to say they have no right to. Because the only part of gun-rights I really care about is the defense against tyranny, and you can do that with or without open carry rights. If its gotten bad enough that you're going to shoot a tyrant's thugs, you probably don't care that carrying that gun is illegal.
If this was reddit I'd plus one that sentence lone for awesomeness.
Although anecdotal, I do believe I can be in a car wreck at anytime and hence why I keep my eyes on the road and both hands on the wheel. But that's not your point--your point is that too often we publicly treat cars as safer objects than they statistically are and I definitely agree with that. But I don't like driving that much as opposed to most americans so I never understood that cultural concept--although I do think its dumb.
I do agree with you on possession rights. Less for tyranny and more for property rights. I'd be as upset as a gun ban as I would be on a car ban. Although a car ban leading to increased dependability on public transit and decreased dependency on oil companies would improve the US both environmentally and health wise (yay more walking!)--but I digress. Right to own the stuff you own is a big reason my family moved to the US and its something I will defend till forever. I'm just not someone who equates regulations with bans.
|
On May 21 2013 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:48 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:41 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. And you are further de-railing the thread with the same childish point, still waiting for your explanation of why you think there is anything unclear about "shall not be infringed" and what is concrete and detailed about "regulated militia". What are all of the specific details about this well regulated militia? How many people? How many guns? What guns should be in it? Obviously its concrete to you so what are the specifics? What could "shall not be infringed" possibly mean besides don't infringe? A militia is a group of people--otherwise it would say person. Regulated means regulations are enforced--tautologically speaking. In other words, people need to be regulated. Ok and that's all it says, it doesn't say HOW we regulate it: hence it is not concrete or specific. As far as shall not be infringed, do you think that is unclear? On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical--why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country. No it isn't a valid point. The United States is far safer than most countries from tyranny because of our Constitution. He never said the United States is about to become a tyranny, he said we need to preserve the 2nd amendment so it doesn't get to that point. It does say specifically "Well regulated" which is the opposite of no regulations and counter intuitive to minimal regulation. Technically speaking, it means slightly below over regulation. It then also states that it is the militia that is important to the defense of the state-- the arming and bearing added in last as a way to augment said militiaIn other words, militias need to be armed, and they need to be well regulated. That is, if you want to stick to the exact words of the amendment. You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others. Also, on the tyranny thing, you can't have it both ways. If you are scared enough to need guns to stop it, then you don't feel safe. If you do feel safe, then why the hell would you want guns to stop something you don't think is coming? I wouldn't point a gun at a random guy on the street and say to him "don't take it personal, just being safe you know." You're either scared of something or you're not. Now, you can enjoy having guns and become so stubborn in a debate you're willing to bring up points you don't really believe in just to prove a point--that would be a very internet forum reader way of dealing with things. Is that more accurate to your stance?
You should read the multiple wordings they considered before deciding on the last version. Your assumptions are wrong, as usual.
+ Show Spoiler +Justice Scalia, writing for the Court in Heller : "In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right":
Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.[135]
|
On May 21 2013 08:00 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:48 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:41 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. And you are further de-railing the thread with the same childish point, still waiting for your explanation of why you think there is anything unclear about "shall not be infringed" and what is concrete and detailed about "regulated militia". What are all of the specific details about this well regulated militia? How many people? How many guns? What guns should be in it? Obviously its concrete to you so what are the specifics? What could "shall not be infringed" possibly mean besides don't infringe? A militia is a group of people--otherwise it would say person. Regulated means regulations are enforced--tautologically speaking. In other words, people need to be regulated. Ok and that's all it says, it doesn't say HOW we regulate it: hence it is not concrete or specific. As far as shall not be infringed, do you think that is unclear? On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical--why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country. No it isn't a valid point. The United States is far safer than most countries from tyranny because of our Constitution. He never said the United States is about to become a tyranny, he said we need to preserve the 2nd amendment so it doesn't get to that point. It does say specifically "Well regulated" which is the opposite of no regulations and counter intuitive to minimal regulation. Technically speaking, it means slightly below over regulation. It then also states that it is the militia that is important to the defense of the state--the arming and bearing added in last as a way to augment said militia. In other words, militias need to be armed, and they need to be well regulated. That is, if you want to stick to the exact words of the amendment. You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others. Also, on the tyranny thing, you can't have it both ways. If you are scared enough to need guns to stop it, then you don't feel safe. If you do feel safe, then why the hell would you want guns to stop something you don't think is coming? I wouldn't point a gun at a random guy on the street and say to him "don't take it personal, just being safe you know." You're either scared of something or you're not. Now, you can enjoy having guns and become so stubborn in a debate you're willing to bring up points you don't really believe in just to prove a point--that would be a very internet forum reader way of dealing with things. Is that more accurate to your stance? Do you think you're going to get in a car crash? No? Then why do you prefer to have airbags? If you're scared enough to need airbags, then you don't feel safe.
Yes--I do feel unsafe when driving. It's why I like airbags, drive the speed limit, and use seatbelts. What's your point? I'm perfectly fine that all these regulations are "put on me" and that I can be fined for not wearing seatbelts and that my car can be impounded if I don't wear my seatbelt enough times. Because I believe those regulations are important to my safety. What's your point?
|
On May 21 2013 08:06 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:48 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:41 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. And you are further de-railing the thread with the same childish point, still waiting for your explanation of why you think there is anything unclear about "shall not be infringed" and what is concrete and detailed about "regulated militia". What are all of the specific details about this well regulated militia? How many people? How many guns? What guns should be in it? Obviously its concrete to you so what are the specifics? What could "shall not be infringed" possibly mean besides don't infringe? A militia is a group of people--otherwise it would say person. Regulated means regulations are enforced--tautologically speaking. In other words, people need to be regulated. Ok and that's all it says, it doesn't say HOW we regulate it: hence it is not concrete or specific. As far as shall not be infringed, do you think that is unclear? On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical--why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country. No it isn't a valid point. The United States is far safer than most countries from tyranny because of our Constitution. He never said the United States is about to become a tyranny, he said we need to preserve the 2nd amendment so it doesn't get to that point. It does say specifically "Well regulated" which is the opposite of no regulations and counter intuitive to minimal regulation. Technically speaking, it means slightly below over regulation. It then also states that it is the militia that is important to the defense of the state-- the arming and bearing added in last as a way to augment said militiaIn other words, militias need to be armed, and they need to be well regulated. That is, if you want to stick to the exact words of the amendment. You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others. Also, on the tyranny thing, you can't have it both ways. If you are scared enough to need guns to stop it, then you don't feel safe. If you do feel safe, then why the hell would you want guns to stop something you don't think is coming? I wouldn't point a gun at a random guy on the street and say to him "don't take it personal, just being safe you know." You're either scared of something or you're not. Now, you can enjoy having guns and become so stubborn in a debate you're willing to bring up points you don't really believe in just to prove a point--that would be a very internet forum reader way of dealing with things. Is that more accurate to your stance? You should read the multiple wordings they considered before deciding on the last version. Your assumptions are wrong, as usual.
Just reading what we actually have and showing why we vague it up so much.
First part of the amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
Where it is clear that the security of a free state is insured by a militia.
Second part of the amendment.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Once again, this phrase is in continuation of the first phrase, the first phrase being augmented by the 2nd phrase.
That is literally what it is saying. It does not say that we need guns to protect against tyranny, it says we need a well regulated militia against tyranny, and it'd be cool if those militias had guns.
|
On May 21 2013 08:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:52 Millitron wrote:On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical-- why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country. See, this is absurd. We don't believe the country is going to fall to tyranny (most of us don't, Alex Jones is a pretty small minority), but we still like having the ability to do something about it in the event that it happens. Do you think you're going to be in a car wreck? No? Then why do you prefer to have airbags? Edit: I'm not arguing about carry rights, just possession rights. I am perfectly OK with the government regulating publicly carrying guns. I would prefer if they didn't, but I'm not going to say they have no right to. Because the only part of gun-rights I really care about is the defense against tyranny, and you can do that with or without open carry rights. If its gotten bad enough that you're going to shoot a tyrant's thugs, you probably don't care that carrying that gun is illegal. If this was reddit I'd plus one that sentence lone for awesomeness. Although anecdotal, I do believe I can be in a car wreck at anytime and hence why I keep my eyes on the road and both hands on the wheel. But that's not your point--your point is that too often we publicly treat cars as safer objects than they statistically are and I definitely agree with that. But I don't like driving that much as opposed to most americans so I never understood that cultural concept--although I do think its dumb. I do agree with you on possession rights. Less for tyranny and more for property rights. I'd be as upset as a gun ban as I would be on a car ban. Although a car ban leading to increased dependability on public transit and decreased dependency on oil companies would improve the US both environmentally and health wise (yay more walking!)--but I digress. Right to own the stuff you own is a big reason my family moved to the US and its something I will defend till forever. I'm just not someone who equates regulations with bans.
See, it depends on the regulations. Like, high-capacity magazine bans, "Assault Weapon" bans, the NFA, all of them infringe on property rights. You simply cannot own those things, for no good reason. The NFA is the only one that ever made any sense, it tried to prevent the Mafia from getting more machine guns, but by the time it got passed, they had mostly stopped using them anyways.
I could get behind background checks if they didn't have to go through an FFL, and if they only returned a yes/no answer, so as to not violate the purchaser's privacy.
I do believe we could, in theory, end up with a tyranny at any time. I highly, HIGHLY doubt we will get one any time soon, or even in the next century. But things can change quickly; Hitler did take over in only a decade or so, as did Mao and Lenin. I'd rather be over-prepared than under-prepared.
|
On May 21 2013 08:06 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:48 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:41 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. And you are further de-railing the thread with the same childish point, still waiting for your explanation of why you think there is anything unclear about "shall not be infringed" and what is concrete and detailed about "regulated militia". What are all of the specific details about this well regulated militia? How many people? How many guns? What guns should be in it? Obviously its concrete to you so what are the specifics? What could "shall not be infringed" possibly mean besides don't infringe? A militia is a group of people--otherwise it would say person. Regulated means regulations are enforced--tautologically speaking. In other words, people need to be regulated. Ok and that's all it says, it doesn't say HOW we regulate it: hence it is not concrete or specific. As far as shall not be infringed, do you think that is unclear? On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical--why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country. No it isn't a valid point. The United States is far safer than most countries from tyranny because of our Constitution. He never said the United States is about to become a tyranny, he said we need to preserve the 2nd amendment so it doesn't get to that point. It does say specifically "Well regulated" which is the opposite of no regulations and counter intuitive to minimal regulation. Technically speaking, it means slightly below over regulation. It then also states that it is the militia that is important to the defense of the state-- the arming and bearing added in last as a way to augment said militiaIn other words, militias need to be armed, and they need to be well regulated. That is, if you want to stick to the exact words of the amendment. You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others. Also, on the tyranny thing, you can't have it both ways. If you are scared enough to need guns to stop it, then you don't feel safe. If you do feel safe, then why the hell would you want guns to stop something you don't think is coming? I wouldn't point a gun at a random guy on the street and say to him "don't take it personal, just being safe you know." You're either scared of something or you're not. Now, you can enjoy having guns and become so stubborn in a debate you're willing to bring up points you don't really believe in just to prove a point--that would be a very internet forum reader way of dealing with things. Is that more accurate to your stance? You should read the multiple wordings they considered before deciding on the last version. Your assumptions are wrong, as usual. + Show Spoiler +Justice Scalia, writing for the Court in Heller : "In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right":
Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.[135]
Cool last minute edit. Let me quote Scalia for you from the quote you love oh so dear.
"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only"
Where he literally says "not militia only" because he honestly wants to ignore that part. Why? Because supreme court rulings are arbitrary to the time period and they vague up the amendments as they see fit. Which is why I said in my post you quoted that you could also just listen to judge interpretations instead of reading the actual amendment.
|
On May 21 2013 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 08:06 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:48 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:41 kmillz wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. And you are further de-railing the thread with the same childish point, still waiting for your explanation of why you think there is anything unclear about "shall not be infringed" and what is concrete and detailed about "regulated militia". What are all of the specific details about this well regulated militia? How many people? How many guns? What guns should be in it? Obviously its concrete to you so what are the specifics? What could "shall not be infringed" possibly mean besides don't infringe? A militia is a group of people--otherwise it would say person. Regulated means regulations are enforced--tautologically speaking. In other words, people need to be regulated. Ok and that's all it says, it doesn't say HOW we regulate it: hence it is not concrete or specific. As far as shall not be infringed, do you think that is unclear? On May 21 2013 07:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:39 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 07:33 heliusx wrote:On May 21 2013 07:19 Paljas wrote:On May 21 2013 06:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Considering the actions of the US government over the last two years that are coming to light, the answer to the question "Should people be allowed [by the government, obviously] to own and carry guns is an unequivocal yes, regardless of all other considerations.
The government is not your friend unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to help you unless you agree with whoever is in charge of it.
The government is not here to preserve or defend your freedom.
The government is here to ask you questions about your friends and your beliefs what you say when you pray.
The government is here to tail you and access your phone records without a warrant because you're a reporter or media organization reporting things the government wants kept secret.
The government is here to progressively restrict your access to guns.
Then, of course, it won't be only the criminals who have guns - the government will have plenty too.
Fuck the US government whether the Democrats or Republicans or anyone is in charge.
If you pooh-pooh the tyranny argument today you're an ignoramus or a knave. how about moving to canada? like, if you are really so mad about the government, what are you doing in the usa? To use your stellar logic of unending wisdom... why don't gun control advocates just move to Canada. oh wait that's completely retarded. If you have nothing productive to add just keep it to yourself, you have steered this thread into shit daily for a few weeks and frankly it's getting annoying. He's asking why would you stay in a country that you mis-trust so much that you need to hold on to guns in case of tyrannic rule. I can read. I know what he's asking. The guy is flame baiting DEB in multiple threads and consistently steers threads into shit posting. He might be shit posting, but it's a very valid point. If you honestly believe you need guns to prevent your government from becoming tyrannical--why are you staying in a country that you believe is about to become tyrannical? Just from a logical standpoint. If the country is so dangerous that you need a gun on you to survive walking down the street? Why are you staying in that country? Logically speaking? I'd understand why some guy in a third world country can't emigrate--because he can't financially survive moving to a non-third world country. But that is not true for people in a first world country moving to a third/2nd world country. No it isn't a valid point. The United States is far safer than most countries from tyranny because of our Constitution. He never said the United States is about to become a tyranny, he said we need to preserve the 2nd amendment so it doesn't get to that point. It does say specifically "Well regulated" which is the opposite of no regulations and counter intuitive to minimal regulation. Technically speaking, it means slightly below over regulation. It then also states that it is the militia that is important to the defense of the state-- the arming and bearing added in last as a way to augment said militiaIn other words, militias need to be armed, and they need to be well regulated. That is, if you want to stick to the exact words of the amendment. You could also stick with Supreme Court readings that ignore portions of the amendment and emphasizes others. Also, on the tyranny thing, you can't have it both ways. If you are scared enough to need guns to stop it, then you don't feel safe. If you do feel safe, then why the hell would you want guns to stop something you don't think is coming? I wouldn't point a gun at a random guy on the street and say to him "don't take it personal, just being safe you know." You're either scared of something or you're not. Now, you can enjoy having guns and become so stubborn in a debate you're willing to bring up points you don't really believe in just to prove a point--that would be a very internet forum reader way of dealing with things. Is that more accurate to your stance? You should read the multiple wordings they considered before deciding on the last version. Your assumptions are wrong, as usual. Just reading what we actually have and showing why we vague it up so much. First part of the amendment. Where it is clear that the security of a free state is insured by a militia. Second part of the amendment. Once again, this phrase is in continuation of the first phrase, the first phrase being augmented by the 2nd phrase. That is literally what it is saying. It does not say that we need guns to protect against tyranny, it says we need a well regulated militia against tyranny, and it'd be cool if those militias had guns.
So you're going to essentially ignore what I said and repost the same thing again? Just don't respond if you don't want to address what people actually say. It's that simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
