Originally posted by Lord Lucieni think youre missing the fact weve always lived in a world where governments can take away our liberties and a gun is a brilliant way to save our life against tyranny. The founding fathers understood this. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
The British Empire would never have happened with gun control. What's your point?Your Founding Fathers are men from a different time and era. With different political realities, different technological capabilities, and different social priorities. Those same men upheld slavery and the marginalization of women and non-WASPs. They started a revolution whose primary aim was to trade the rich, white, ruling elites from one country and replace them with the rich, white, ruling elites from their new one. And thousands of peasants and peasant-soldiers died to help them do it.
You would look at those values and social norms from those days and say they were a "product of their time". Why do you think that sentiment should exclude their acceptance on firearms? The post-Revolutionary period was a time when the notion that all men should carry weapons as self-defence made alot of sense. An armed militia made sense when the 2nd Amendment was drafted. The British colonies still existed. Britain was still hostile. Natives still raided settlements. Rebellions still happened--the 2nd Amendment (the whole Bill of Rights) was introduced in 1791, the same year the Whiskey Rebellion broke out. An armed populace and militia made sense.
We don't live in that world anymore. It no longer makes any practical sense.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Figured I'd just post this up real quick:"A [b]well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."That's the entirety of the 2nd Amendment. The bold text is my emphasis to accompany what I said earlier. [/B]
Where in the 2nd Am does it say it can ONLY be a Militia that is Armed? The 2nd part of your quote says "THE PEOPLE". Are "THE PEOPLE" different from "The Militia"?
Originally posted by Withsensibility
The technology is not the issue. Its a constitutional right to defend against the tyrannical government. Whether its drones nuclear arms or muskets. Kinda like how BLM fight against the police. Do you get it now?Poor argument.
The "tyrannical government" excuse is easily the most retarded of them all. Either you believe your military with act against your civilian population of government orders in which case weapons available to civilians wouldn't have a hope against your military or, as is much more likely, your military wouldn't act on those orders and would be far more likely to remove that tyrannical government from power on behalf of the civilian population.
Either way makes a mockery of the "we need guns to protect us from our government" argument.
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
How's that fair to the overwhelming majority of responsible gun owners? That's essentially screwing 99% of gun owners for the stupidity of the 1%. That will never pass.Ah yes, because that's what every responsible gun owner needs and that's to be watched everytime he fires his weapon. Another terrible solution.
What's the point of fingerprint recognition other than being totally awesome? That just means that gun owners can....Fire their own weapons? I suppose that will prevent 1 massacre a year so I'm for it. The rest of the suggestions aren't realistic or even logical.
1. It isnt. But it gets around "banning" weapons
2. They wouldn't be "watched". Either the weapon would only work at designated locations or the police would be notified if the weapon was discharged in an area that wasn't a gun range meaning response times would be much faster to potential fatal shootings. It's not really any different than the gunfire locators they utilitise in high crime areas.
3. As already suggested, it would ensure only the legal owner could use it. There would be less accidental shootings. There would be less instances of a family member taking and using the weapon etc etc. The fingerprint would be programmed at the time of purchase by the vendor for the legal purchaser only and not programmed by the buyer so they couldn't be sold on except to a licenced gun shop.
In my experience, the people who use the "for when the government tries to take over" reason for gun ownership tend to be conspriracy loving loons scared of their own shadow. Several valid reasons to own a gun and they pick the crazy one. eg home protection, sporting, hunting, collector or just the good ole fashioned "I just like guns".
Originally posted by Petrus
Check this out:
Yes but like I said..that was some douche apparently overlooking laws and stuff. Since the article you gave made it pretty clear a kid isn't supposed to literally just be able to walk in and do that.
2. They wouldn't be "watched". Either the weapon would only work at designated locations or the police would be notified if the weapon was discharged in an area that wasn't a gun range meaning response times would be much faster to potential fatal shootings. It's not really any different than the gunfire locators they utilitise in high crime areas.
In my experience, the people who use the "for when the government tries to take over" reason for gun ownership tend to be conspriracy loving loons scared of their own shadow. Several valid reasons to own a gun and they pick the crazy one. eg home protection, sporting, hunting, collector or just the good ole fashioned "I just like guns".
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
The argument that "it can't happen here" is an idiotic one though, but I digress.I have a hard time giving government employees all the leeway with firearms while I have to get a license and fire only in an area someone designates to be "safe".
Wasn't touching on the chances of it happening or not. It very well could, just not likely imo.
It should be equal laws all around. If we made it where Joe Average had to take a basic gun safety test before he's allowed to own a gun, there's no reason why a government employee shouldn't have to pass the same test. Though exceptions could be made for say someone where they already previously had to show aptitude with firearms to be employed in a given job. eg police, military, security. Though I would hope an ex cop could pass a basic gun safety test should he/she want to own gun.
You can't negate those types of people, they'll find something. I'm still waiting for Obama to declare marshall law in order to suspend the election and declare himself emperor of mankind.
But what exactly did you mean with "leeway", example(s)? Cos I'm pretty sure police and servicemen can't just go shooting around the street freely.
Do you really have to rant about Clinton in here? There's multiple other threads.
Our justice system favors the wealthy/those in power. Why some common person can get 10 years in federal prison for passing a fake check and a billionaire gets only 2 years; then that's reduced, for trying to rape a 14 year old.
Originally posted by Robtard
Do you really have to rant about Clinton in here? There's multiple other threads.
We surely have different views of what constitutes a "rant".
Our justice system favors the wealthy/those in power. Why some common person can get 10 years in federal prison for passing a fake check and a billionaire gets only 2 years; then that's reduced, for trying to rape a 14 year old.
It also favors women. That isn't even a comment on Hilary specifically since she was never charged with anything and I'm talking about people who get charged with a crime.
Originally posted by WithsensibilityYeah how's the going by the way? The whole "protecting your liberties"? Have your guns stopped the government from taking away your rights?
i think youre missing the fact weve always lived in a world where governments can take away our liberties and a gun is a brilliant way to save our life against tyranny. The founding fathers understood this. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Remember when the NSA scandal blew up, where they were found to be invading everyone's privacy through the phones? Did your guns stop them? Or how about the PATRIOT Act? Did your guns stop that? Remember when the U.S. forcibly made it's citizens fight a decade-long war in some who-gives-a-f*ck southeast Asian country? Not willingly, forcibly--they forced young men through conscription to go fight and die. Where were their rights? Your guns didn't protect their freedom of choice.
People b*tch (rightly so) that the government likes to limit freedoms and liberties in the name of security and its own self-serving power. Because it does. Your guns aren't stopping them.
Originally posted by FlyattractorWhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say that "arms" DON'T mean semi-automatic assault rifles and pistols? Or fully-automatic, belt-fed, 7.76 machine guns? Or rocket launchers? Or SAMs? Or thermonuclear warheads? It's almost like it's vague and presumptuous about what "arms" means. Almost like when those words were written and drafted, Thomas Jefferson couldn't predict what manner of weapons would be developed far in to the future. It's almost like the Constitution isn't set in stone, is open to speculative interpretation, and is capable of being updated and modified to fit the needs of a changing world. Ya know, amendments.
[b]Where in the 2nd Am does it say it can ONLY be a Militia that is Armed? The 2nd part of your quote says "THE PEOPLE". Are "THE PEOPLE" different from "The Militia"? [/B]
Originally posted by SurturOkay then can she at least be left for the appropriate thread? Complaining about her in here doesn't enlighten anyone in regards to the gun control issue, it just inflames everyone over a tangentially-related topic.
We surely have different views of what constitutes a "rant".
Originally posted by Robtardit was in response to jaden's suggestion that permitted gun owners be allowed to fire in certain locations, otherwise are alerted to authorities, while police get carte Blanche.
You can't negate those types of people, they'll find something. I'm still waiting for Obama to declare marshall law in order to suspend the election and declare himself emperor of mankind.But what exactly did you mean with "leeway", example(s)? Cos I'm pretty sure police and servicemen can't just go shooting around the street freely.
Originally posted by jaden101read again what you posted, retard.
The "tyrannical government" excuse is easily the most retarded of them all. Either you believe your military with act against your civilian population of government orders in which case weapons available to civilians wouldn't have a hope against your military or, as is much more likely, your military wouldn't act on those orders and would be far more likely to remove that tyrannical government from power on behalf of the civilian population.Either way makes a mockery of the "we need guns to protect us from our government" argument.
Our guns protect us from a tyrannical government. The us government is more scared of its own people because its a government by the people. We have guns to say "**** you" to whatever government.