Gun Control - Page 18

Suntzu · 2012-08-17, 11:02 AM

Jumping into this 19 pages deep but regardless of what anyone else thinks the 2nd amendment is for the founders intended the 2nd amendment to protect citizens from a tyranical government. Either an outside one such as king george england, WW2 germany/japan or our OWN goverment.

It was written at a time when king george(the tyrant) was restricting the colonist from having firearms so they could not rebel from his policy making.

Keeping in mind what they wanted was for citizens to protect themselves from government then preventing citizens from owning things such as military grade weapons is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

And if you dont think goverment today is tyranical then youre turning a blind eye to the subject. Go rewatch the videos posted from the wallstreet protests. Or my favorite is go search "corrupt police" on youtube and spend several months watching all of those videos.

If you dont think that government is corrupt and getting more so then nothing will convince you.

Warborn · 2012-08-17, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

So the best argument against my being able to own guns are statistics that are irrelevant to me and sarcasm.

Nothing is funnier than people looking down their nose at statistics. Yes, my best argument against your dumb ideas is reality.

Originally Posted by Suntzu

Jumping into this 19 pages deep but regardless of what anyone else thinks the 2nd amendment is for the founders intended the 2nd amendment to protect citizens from a tyranical government. Either an outside one such as king george england, WW2 germany/japan or our OWN goverment.

The people who wrote that shit lived in a world where a "soldier" was just some asshole with a musket and a bit of training on how to do foot drill and listen to orders to fire and load and stuff. The world they wrote that for is vastly different from the one we live in now. Which is why Thomas Jefferson, easily the best of them, thought the Constitution should be rewritten every 20 years.

Baneblade · 2012-08-17, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Warborn

Nothing is funnier than people looking down their nose at statistics. Yes, my best argument against your dumb ideas is reality.

I don't look down my nose at statistics, I look down my nose at people that think they are enough of a reason to change one of the Bill of Rights.

I would argue that the First Amendment has caused more statistical fuckery than the Second ever has. It's just not as clear cut.

Suntzu · 2012-08-17, 11:14 AM

Jumping into this 19 pages deep but regardless of what anyone else thinks the 2nd amendment is for the founders intended the 2nd amendment to protect citizens from a tyranical government. Either an outside one such as king george england, WW2 germany/japan or our OWN goverment.

It was written at a time when king george(the tyrant) was restricting the colonist from having firearms so they could not rebel from his policy making.

Keeping in mind what they wanted was for citizens to protect themselves from government then preventing citizens from owning things such as military grade weapons is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

And if you dont think goverment today is tyranical then youre turning a blind eye to the subject. Go rewatch the videos posted from the wallstreet protests. Or my favorite is go search "corrupt police" on youtube and spend several months watching all of those videos.

And after watching all those videos, if you dont think that government is corrupt and getting more so then nothing will convince you.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-08-17, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Suntzu

Jumping into this 19 pages deep but regardless of what anyone else thinks the 2nd amendment is for the founders intended the 2nd amendment to protect citizens from a tyranical government. Either an outside one such as king george england, WW2 germany/japan or our OWN goverment.

It was written at a time when king george(the tyrant) was restricting the colonist from having firearms so they could not rebel from his policy making.

Keeping in mind what they wanted was for citizens to protect themselves from government then preventing citizens from owning things such as military grade weapons is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

And if you dont think goverment today is tyranical then youre turning a blind eye to the subject. Go rewatch the videos posted from the wallstreet protests. Or my favorite is go search "corrupt police" on youtube and spend several months watching all of those videos.

And after watching all those videos, if you dont think that government is corrupt and getting more so then nothing will convince you.

If you think you stand a chance against the modern military you're living in a fantasy world and have let yourself become too convinced by movies and video games. If the government wanted to destroy you, you wouldn't even know it. They have weapons that can kill you that are fully automated, controlled by a guy sitting on a boat halfway across the planet. You wouldn't even see it coming, nor would you notice it happening even as it happened.

I'm also sick to fucking death of people bringing up the 'intent of the framers'. When they wrote down that amendment, their top of the line firearms were muskets that took a long time to reload for a single shot and cannons that took teams of men to operate, and I somewhat doubt they would have been cool with private citizens owning cannons. They never imagined a world where guns could become so advanced that I could hand one to a ten year old that could wipe out an entire roomful of people with a single depression of the trigger.

If we're going to allow people to own guns we're going to have to define more clearly what we mean by that, and do so using 21st century reasoning, not 17th century reasoning.

Baneblade · 2012-08-17, 11:33 AM

The intention of the Second Amendment was for the citizens to be able to freely form a militia when needed. There was never supposed to be a standing army or federal soldiers. They were going for something more like what Switzerland and Israel did.

Suntzu · 2012-08-17, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

If you think you stand a chance against the modern military you're living in a fantasy world and have let yourself become too convinced by movies and video games. If the government wanted to destroy you, you wouldn't even know it. They have weapons that can kill you that are fully automated, controlled by a guy sitting on a boat halfway across the planet. You wouldn't even see it coming, nor would you notice it happening even as it happened.

I'm also sick to fucking death of people bringing up the 'intent of the framers'. When they wrote down that amendment, their top of the line firearms were muskets that took a long time to reload for a single shot and cannons that took teams of men to operate, and I somewhat doubt they would have been cool with private citizens owning cannons. They never imagined a world where guns could become so advanced that I could hand one to a ten year old that could wipe out an entire roomful of people with a single depression of the trigger.

If we're going to allow people to own guns we're going to have to define more clearly what we mean by that, and do so using 21st century reasoning, not 17th century reasoning.

Thats great but thats not what i said. I definatly dont think we would stand a chance against our own military.

Let me make this more simple.

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.

If you dont believe the first statement is true then you wont agree with the second statement.

but if you dont agree with the first statement then you should probably go start reading a bunch of history books imho.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-08-17, 11:58 AM

I don't think the first statement is true, but I don't have to read any history books because I think Bane has the right of it. They considered the militia as their best form of national defense. That's now highly outdated, and in need of an update.

Suntzu · 2012-08-17, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

I don't think the first statement is true, but I don't have to read any history books because I think Bane has the right of it. They considered the militia as their best form of national defense. That's now highly outdated, and in need of an update.

So what you are saying is that the founders ONLY intended the militia for the purpose of protection from outside forces?

Even though at the time they were under England's/King George rule (thier own government) and rebeling from King George and King George at the time was making laws that would take away thier weapons.

You still think the militia was strictly for the purpose of defense from foreign invaders?

Interesting...

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-08-17, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by Suntzu

So what you are saying is that the founders ONLY intended the militia for the purpose of protection from outside forces?

Even though at the time they were under England's/King George rule (thier own government) and rebeling from King George and King George at the time was making laws that would take away thier weapons.

You still think the militia was strictly for the purpose of defense from foreign invaders?

Interesting...

That's not what I said but you're welcome to believe that, because it doesn't matter. The statement is outdated for both reason independently or together. It's like asking if I think they wanted a militia to defend against werewolves, space aliens, or both. Neither case reflects reality and so the entire premise is flawed and needs revision.

Suntzu · 2012-08-17, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

That's not what I said but you're welcome to believe that, because it doesn't matter. The statement is outdated for both reason independently or together. It's like asking if I think they wanted a militia to defend against werewolves, space aliens, or both. Neither case reflects reality and so the entire premise is flawed and needs revision.

Well is there were aliens attacking us or werewolves then that might get into the arguement.

But its a simple question.

What do YOU think the purpose of the militia was for? They did not arbitrarily toss it in because the document was to short and they wanted to add some stuff. They had something in mind when they put it in and it was obviously pretty important because it was the second thing on the list.

what do YOU think the purpose of the militia was for? Only defense from foreign governments?

p.s. by tossing aliens in werewolves in there I can already tell you’ve running out of thoughts and are dismissing the argument entirely because you’ve been backed into a logic corner.

Warborn · 2012-08-17, 01:33 PM

And the fact that Jefferson was concerned even by 1816 that the Constitution had become the cornerstone of a kind of civic religion, and thought that in contrast to the people who held the Constitution as sacred and perfect and should never be touched, he thought it should be constantly updated as society advanced? Is one of the authors of the thing and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence telling you the Constitution is just a document and people need to change it to keep it modern and appropriate enough?

It's pretty clear that the redcoats aren't coming. England isn't going to invade. The 2nd Amendment as a basis for keeping a militia to prevent future conquest is out of date and entirely inappropriate, and the idiotic veneration of the Constitution is the only thing that keeps it from being changed and made more sensible.

Suntzu · 2012-08-17, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

And the fact that Jefferson was concerned even by 1816 that the Constitution had become the cornerstone of a kind of civic religion, and thought that in contrast to the people who held the Constitution as sacred and perfect and should never be touched, he thought it should be constantly updated as society advanced? Is one of the authors of the thing and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence telling you the Constitution is just a document and people need to change it to keep it modern and appropriate enough?

It's pretty clear that the redcoats aren't coming. England isn't going to invade. The 2nd Amendment as a basis for keeping a militia to prevent future conquest is out of date and entirely inappropriate, and the idiotic veneration of the Constitution is the only thing that keeps it from being changed and made more sensible.

SO again you think the ONLY purpose of the militia was to protect a country from foreign invaders?

Warborn · 2012-08-17, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Suntzu

SO again you think the ONLY purpose of the militia was to protect a country from foreign invaders?

And watering the tree of liberty with... I'm guessing crude oil and the screams of brown people? However that quote went.

Neither deposing the government nor fighting a foreign military are things people can do with militias anymore. The purposes of the 2nd are outdated and have been outdated since the advent of armored fighting vehicles, so since the 40s or so. It's only gotten more pointless since then. And Baneblade or whoever else having dumb fantasies about fighting the government or possibly the lizard people during the Tau Ceti Invasion of 2032 don't count as a good reason.

Suntzu · 2012-08-17, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

And watering the tree of liberty with... I'm guessing crude oil and the screams of brown people? However that quote went.

Neither deposing the government nor fighting a foreign military are things people can do with militias anymore. The purposes of the 2nd are outdated and have been outdated since the advent of armored fighting vehicles, so since the 40s or so. It's only gotten more pointless since then. And Baneblade or whoever else having dumb fantasies about fighting the government or possibly the lizard people during the Tau Ceti Invasion of 2032 don't count as a good reason.

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.