Gun Control

[Baneblade]

You can't expect a willing subject of the crown to understand a viewpoint of being able to fight said crown.

[Suntzu]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

You can't expect a willing subject of the crown to understand a viewpoint of being able to fight said crown.

Awesome, first statement on this thread that I can agree with.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Suntzu

So im assuming that was pretty much a yes. If you think that was the intent was to protect from foreign invasion then answer this.

when in history has any country ever gone and said...

Great citizens of Utopia, in case of foreign invasion please be assured we give you permission to form a defense force so that you can repel the invading country!

It hasnt happened, because it never needed to happen. it is understood that any country can be defended by its citizens throughout all of history.

There is a reason the 2nd amendment is right under the 1st amendment. It says you have the freedom of speech first and when the government become tyranical and toss you in jail for speaking against your government you have the 2nd amendment to back you up. Its specific intent was protection from other countries as well as your OWN country.

Oh god I can't believe you went through all that effort so you could deliver your master stroke, only to have it come out as the same silly thing you said before. Was this really the logical trap you were hoping to bait me into? Please tell me you had something better lined up.

I even said that you were welcome to that line of reasoning because it's flawed anyway. It doesn't matter what their intent for the militia was; what about that don't you get? A militia is useless in the modern day in both utilizations. It'd be useless to fend off an attack from China and it'd be useless to fend off an attack from the United States military. There is no point to it in any capacity.

The only useful implementation for personal-use firearms are as follows:

Home and personal defense
Target shooting and sport
Hunting wild game
Collecting

That's it. Unless you happen to be in the personal possession of armored attack vehicles you're not going to stand much of a chance to any military force that would have the chops to launch an attack here so drop the point. The Constitution needs an update here because the framers' intent is irrelevant.

[Suntzu]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Oh god I can't believe you went through all that effort so you could deliver your master stroke, only to have it come out as the same silly thing you said before. Was this really the logical trap you were hoping to bait me into? Please tell me you had something better lined up.

I even said that you were welcome to that line of reasoning because it's flawed anyway. It doesn't matter what their intent for the militia was; what about that don't you get? A militia is useless in the modern day in both utilizations. It'd be useless to fend off an attack from China and it'd be useless to fend off an attack from the United States military. There is no point to it in any capacity.

The only useful implementation for personal-use firearms are as follows:

Home and personal defense
Target shooting and sport
Hunting wild game
Collecting

That's it. Unless you happen to be in the personal possession of armored attack vehicles you're not going to stand much of a chance to any military force that would have the chops to launch an attack here so drop the point. The Constitution needs an update here because the framers' intent is irrelevant.

Yes it is a logic trap, what the founders did is very logical. And yes what we can do would not be effective from an organized military either our own or china.

but thats the point we have restricted unconstitutionally what weapons we as citizens can own for the procise reason of preventing a revolution against a tyranical government , again our own or foreign.

The 2nd amendment was not put in place to protect your ability to hunt or target shoot or collecting for the sake of collecting (yes on the personal defense) it was put into place to protect from tyranical governments.

Now once you agree with that, then the principle of the 2nd amendment is timeless.

IF statement -the intent of the founders was that citizens should be able to protect themselves from outside or THIER OWN tyrancial government = TRUE

then the 2nd amendment means we should have the ability to or attempt the ability to get on somewhat of an equal footing with the government for our defense against the tyranical government.


And btw a militia is not outdated, if it were, the war against al qaeda would have been over a long time ago.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Suntzu

Yes it is a logic trap, what the founders did is very logical. And yes what we can do would not be effective from an organized military either our own or china.

but thats the point we have restricted unconstitutionally what weapons we as citizens can own for the procise reason of preventing a revolution against a tyranical government , again our own or foreign.

The 2nd amendment was not put in place to protect your ability to hunt or target shoot or collecting for the sake of collecting (yes on the personal defense) it was put into place to protect from tyranical governments.

Now once you agree with that, then the principle of the 2nd amendment is timeless.

IF statement -the intent of the founders was that citizens should be able to protect themselves from outside or THIER OWN tyrancial government = TRUE

then the 2nd amendment means we should have the ability to or attempt the ability to get on somewhat of an equal footing with the government for our defense against the tyranical government.


And btw a militia is not outdated, if it were, the war against al qaeda would have been over a long time ago.

Has it perhaps occurred to you that the war in Afghanistan is dragging on not because the Taliban forces are a match for the coalition, but instead because of the harsh, largely rural and inhospitable terrain? Also, I hate to break it to you, but they're not exactly winning. The only reason they haven't lost is because that war has no win or loss condition. They certainly aren't winning any battles. It largely continues because they avoid direct conflict and rely on blending with the local populace.

Not, it can't be stressed too much, because they stand a snowflake's chance in hell against an M1A2 Abrams or an AC-130. Whenever they get drawn into a direct battle they tend to lose, and they tend to lose badly.

The reason for this is because equipment can't account for training and frankly, the rest of us all have jobs to do. We now have standing militaries where soldiers are trained all day every day to fight, where commanders spend all their time on strategy and tactics. The rest of us have day jobs to go to where we fix networks or sweep out movie theaters or repave highways. If you handed me state of the art military-grade hardware I wouldn't know what to do with it and frankly it's a good thing because I, like just about everyone else, would only end up hurting someone.

Good golly miss molly, if you think that a modern-day militia would stand any chance, any chance at all against a professional military, especially one of the caliber that the US can bring to bear, you are living in a cartoon world. Maybe you've been playing too much Call of Duty.

The framers had no idea the world would look like this. They designed the 2nd Amendment to fit their world, not ours. Some of the concepts can stand the test of time but this is not one of them. As I said before, the idea of a 'militia' is antiquated and useless to us in the modern day. So wondering what the framers meant by it is a futile exercise and a waste of time.

[Suntzu]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Has it perhaps occurred to you that the war in Afghanistan is dragging on not because the Taliban forces are a match for the coalition, but instead because of the harsh, largely rural and inhospitable terrain? Also, I hate to break it to you, but they're not exactly winning. The only reason they haven't lost is because that war has no win or loss condition. They certainly aren't winning any battles. It largely continues because they avoid direct conflict and rely on blending with the local populace.

Not, it can't be stressed too much, because they stand a snowflake's chance in hell against an M1A2 Abrams or an AC-130. Whenever they get drawn into a direct battle they tend to lose, and they tend to lose badly.

The reason for this is because equipment can't account for training and frankly, the rest of us all have jobs to do. We now have standing militaries where soldiers are trained all day every day to fight, where commanders spend all their time on strategy and tactics. The rest of us have day jobs to go to where we fix networks or sweep out movie theaters or repave highways. If you handed me state of the art military-grade hardware I wouldn't know what to do with it and frankly it's a good thing because I, like just about everyone else, would only end up hurting someone.

Good golly miss molly, if you think that a modern-day militia would stand any chance, any chance at all against a professional military, especially one of the caliber that the US can bring to bear, you are living in a cartoon world. Maybe you've been playing too much Call of Duty.

The framers had no idea the world would look like this. They designed the 2nd Amendment to fit their world, not ours. Some of the concepts can stand the test of time but this is not one of them. As I said before, the idea of a 'militia' is antiquated and useless to us in the modern day. So wondering what the framers meant by it is a futile exercise and a waste of time.

Yes yes i have conseded that point many times. With what we have available our citizens could not go in a toe to toe battle with our military.

but 1. I am not worried about our military. If the fit hit the shan and our government went into full blown dictator facism mode I fully believe that our military leaders are educated enough in consitutional law that they would probably throw coo de ta and reestablish a constitional government.

2. Currently though our police force is the ones though that are largly corrupt(again spend about 2 months watching all the you tube videos)

I am not trying to argue what if scenerios though, the subject is gun control.

the intent(yes you can determine intent, only the university professiors with thier post modernism there is no truth arguements think otherwise) the intent of the 2nd amendment was that the citizens could protect itself from its own tyranical government therefor gun control is not constitutional.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Suntzu

Yes yes i have conseded that point many times. With what we have available our citizens could not go in a toe to toe battle with our military.

but 1. I am not worried about our military. If the fit hit the shan and our government went into full blown dictator facism mode I fully believe that our military leaders are educated enough in consitutional law that they would probably throw coo de ta and reestablish a constitional government.

2. Currently though our police force is the ones though that are largly corrupt(again spend about 2 months watching all the you tube videos)

I am not trying to argue what if scenerios though, the subject is gun control.

the intent(yes you can determine intent, only the university professiors with thier post modernism there is no truth arguements think otherwise) the intent of the 2nd amendment was that the citizens could protect itself from its own tyranical government therefor gun control is not constitutional.

Your contempt for centers of learning and the opinions of educators is borne out of your spelling, syntax and sentence structure. Believe me, you don't need to reinforce it.

It's very funny to me that you cite youtube videos in evidence. If we're using youtube as reference material, then you could make the argument that the Bald Eagle should be replaced with a cat as our national symbol and skateboarding would be made illegal because of its threat to bodily harm. Don't come to me with youtube and expect me to do anything but roll my eyes and laugh you off. I don't find it compelling. Neither that, nor your grade school understanding of constitutional law.

To piggyback something of value off your drivel, however, its worth pointing out that personal-use firearms have their place in my opinion, and there should be a legible, relevant constitutional amendment to that effect. All that nonsense about militias should be taken out and in its place, a clear declaration that make sense for our age.

[Suntzu]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Your contempt for centers of learning and the opinions of educators is borne out of your spelling, syntax and sentence structure. Believe me, you don't need to reinforce it.

It's very funny to me that you cite youtube videos in evidence. If we're using youtube as reference material, then you could make the argument that the Bald Eagle should be replaced with a cat as our national symbol and skateboarding would be made illegal because of its threat to bodily harm. Don't come to me with youtube and expect me to do anything but roll my eyes and laugh you off. I don't find it compelling. Neither that, nor your grade school understanding of constitutional law.

To piggyback something of value off your drivel, however, its worth pointing out that personal-use firearms have their place in my opinion, and there should be a legible, relevant constitutional amendment to that effect. All that nonsense about militias should be taken out and in its place, a clear declaration that make sense for our age.

Since you cannot attack my the message with any sort of historical refernce or logical statements you attack the messenger. Pretty typical.

And I did not attack centers for higher learning, nor did i attack ALL professors. I attacked the fallacy of the "there is no truth" post modernism theory that is prevailent throughout most of the professors. the circular logic used to prove whatever point they want to try to prove. You cant know whats in thier mind because youre not in thier mind, garbage.

And dont confuse schooled with educated. There are quite a few people who spend alot of time in school and never get an education and alot of people who spend no time in school who are the most educated.

I dont know quite a few videos that are posted on youtube were used for evidence in trials. Sounds to me that you tube videos could be evidence.

Why dont you go watch a few and see if there is any evidence there?

p.s. Myabe from now on I soluhd post all of my mgseases lkie this so taht we can get past tpyos wihle we are mulnattisikg and sctik the masgese In a forum of dinbetag iaeds if you have to sootp to gmaramr and spnilleg ckehcs tehn you have lsot the debate

[Baneblade]

Chrome spell checks on the fly. It's talented.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Suntzu

Its specific intent was protection from other countries as well as your OWN country.

You would not like the outcome of an attempted violent uprising in the USA. Even peaceful Occupy protesters get brutalized, what do you think they'd do if one of them pulled a gun? It'd be like those miners in South Africa recently. They'd gun them all down. And if that didn't work, well, you spend hundreds of billions on your military every year. Think an unmanned drone has much to fear from a bunch of assholes with automatic rifles?

Originally Posted by Suntzu

but 1. I am not worried about our military. If the fit hit the shan and our government went into full blown dictator facism mode I fully believe that our military leaders are educated enough in consitutional law that they would probably throw coo de ta and reestablish a constitional government.

If you aren't worried about your military then why do you need guns, exactly? Do you understand how this all comes down to the military not turning on the civilians? You cannot win in a violent uprising. The best hope you would ever, ever have is for a peaceful revolution like in Egypt, where the military stands by and the corrupt regime is overthrown.

But what do you think would have happened if the Egyptians had guns? They'd have died. The revolution would have failed. Soldiers, regardless of their personal beliefs, will defend themselves when they're fired upon. Adding guns to a revolution where the military is sitting on the fence would only ensure that some soldiers get killed, and the rest of the military has all the excuse it needs to rain death on you.

[Baneblade]

Why do you care? Canada would be the dominant nation in the the western hemisphere if the USA slipped into third world territory.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Why do you care? Canada would be the dominant nation in the the western hemisphere if the USA slipped into third world territory.

Most homicides in Canada are committed with pistols smuggled into the country from the USA. I imagine most of the guns in Mexico are also from the US. Your shitty gun laws that only so that dumb people can masturbate while looking at their gun collection and fantasizing about fighting the gub'ment, while the price is however-many of your own dead and lots of dead Mexicans and Canadians too. And yes, I know you don't care about dead Mexicans or Canadians.

But even if that weren't the case I'd still care, because I know a stupid idea when I see one, and I just can't help talking about how dumb the 2nd Amendment is in the 21st century.

[Boof]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

An M9 with a magazine of 9mm +P 147 gr JHP. Is as dangerous as any
weapon you just mentioned. Reason. It is not the gun, it's the bullet.

In the 90s the Black Talon bullet was famous for being so brutal. That is a
baby compared to the bullets available to civilians these days. Technology
has come a long way with bullets.

People who have these gun grabber discussions don't understand. It is the
bullet that has become more powerful, not the gun.

I can see where you're coming from. However, when a shooting happens, it's all about the gun. If you have a semi automatic assault rifle that can hold up to say 30 rounds that's - potentially - 30 dead people. If the shooter only has a handgun with a clip of 12 rounds then that's a lot less casualties.

Also, clip size does matter. The less the guy shoots before having to reload the faster the victims have a chance to jump the guy while he's reloading. That's how the shooter in Arizona who shot Gabby Giffords was stopped. He was reloading and people tackled him.

[Hamma]

Originally Posted by Warborn

Most homicides in Canada are committed with pistols smuggled into the country from the USA. I imagine most of the guns in Mexico are also from the US. Your shitty gun laws that only so that dumb people can masturbate while looking at their gun collection and fantasizing about fighting the gub'ment, while the price is however-many of your own dead and lots of dead Mexicans and Canadians too. And yes, I know you don't care about dead Mexicans or Canadians.

Ignorance is bliss.

Where's that switch at to make a perfect peaceful world without guns? Oh right.. it doesn't exist.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Warborn

Most homicides in Canada are committed with pistols smuggled into the country from the USA. I imagine most of the guns in Mexico are also from the US.

You are going to have to quantify that, I didn't find anything to suggest you are correct.

Your shitty gun laws that only so that dumb people can masturbate while looking at their gun collection and fantasizing about fighting the gub'ment, while the price is however-many of your own dead and lots of dead Mexicans and Canadians too. And yes, I know you don't care about dead Mexicans or Canadians.

Sensationalism. Get over it.