Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Some people are alive only because it is illegal to shoot them
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
2012-08-17, 02:22 PM | [Ignore Me] #273 | |||
Second Lieutenant
|
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. |
|||
|
2012-08-17, 02:36 PM | [Ignore Me] #274 | |||
Private
|
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 And btw a militia is not outdated, if it were, the war against al qaeda would have been over a long time ago. |
|||
|
2012-08-17, 02:55 PM | [Ignore Me] #275 | |||
Second Lieutenant
|
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. |
|||
|
2012-08-17, 03:09 PM | [Ignore Me] #276 | |||
Private
|
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. |
|||
|
2012-08-17, 03:19 PM | [Ignore Me] #277 | |||
Second Lieutenant
|
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. |
|||
|
2012-08-17, 03:48 PM | [Ignore Me] #278 | |||
Private
|
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 Last edited by Suntzu; 2012-08-17 at 04:56 PM. |
|||
|
2012-08-17, 09:49 PM | [Ignore Me] #280 | ||||
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. Last edited by Warborn; 2012-08-17 at 10:04 PM. |
|||||
|
2012-08-17, 10:08 PM | [Ignore Me] #282 | |||
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. Last edited by Warborn; 2012-08-17 at 10:10 PM. |
||||
|
2012-08-18, 12:25 AM | [Ignore Me] #283 | |||
Private
|
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. |
|||
|
2012-08-18, 04:40 PM | [Ignore Me] #284 | |||
PSU Admin
|
Where's that switch at to make a perfect peaceful world without guns? Oh right.. it doesn't exist. |
|||
|
2012-08-18, 05:23 PM | [Ignore Me] #285 | ||||
|
|||||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|