Printable View
Its a disagreement. The rebellion wouldnt just use their rifles and pistols. We would take lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and employ IEDs and hit and run tactics that have worked so well against modern military forces. COIN (counter-insurgency) is by far the hardest form of warfare to wage.
Huh, well going by the news I got the idea that the afghans were causing more damage with bombs than bullets and that they were doing it with guns from out of the country.
LOL. Why, what has he done to make you think you need more guns?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t2
The quite intesting bit (Bold added by me):
As the article said, Obama has done literally nothing to inhibit gun ownership, but the gun industry has done a great job building him up as the biggest straw-man and convinced you that you need even more guns to protect yourself from the communist, post-apocolyptic hell-hole that the world will surely become under Obama. And you're falling for it hook line and sinker with posts like that.Quote:
Here's one more such paradox: Obama has done literally nothing to restrict the (large and growing) rights of gun owners. President Bill Clinton signed two important pieces of gun control legislation and issued many restrictive executive orders; Obama has not so much as introduced even one.Yet the election of Obama has triggered an angry reaction among gun owners fiercer than anything seen under Clinton. Between 1960 and the late 1990s, there occurred a gradual decline in the percentage of American homes that contain a gun, from about one-half to about one-third.
(This trend is at least partly explained by the decline of hunting as a sport. In 2011, about 6% of Americans aged 16 or over went hunting even once in the year. )
In 2009, however, that trend away from guns abruptly went into reverse. Gun buying spiked in the Obama administration, pushing the share of households with a gun all the way back up to 47%, near the 1960 peak, even as crime rates tumbled to the lowest levels ever recorded, making guns less necessary than ever to self-defense. Black Friday 2012 set a one-day record for gun sales.
At any rate, I also like the rest of the article's thrust, that only a grassroots, citizen led movement similar to MADD will ever be able to change your warped societal view that gun ownership should be protected at the expense of all else.
Yeah but that's kind of his point isn't it? His way is the only way Taliban & co manages to be effective against the US Army: by their use of improvised explosives, which work indiscriminately even against far superior equipment and training.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
They certainly do not win by their superior marksmanship, discipline or the quality of their guns.
I think a counter point could be the Chechen rebel/terrorist "armour hunter-killer teams" against the Russian forces but then again their equipment and organisation is very striking and they used a variety of more heavy weaponry (which most people in America would not have) in combination with the trusty old molotov.
The comparison between alcohol and guns is bunk for the simple fact that the purpose of alcohol is not to kill someone or something with. If you want to compare, you would have to have an environment where you could own and load guns, but not, you know, actually carry them in public (public drinking).
Which sounds to me like it might actually be an improvement, but then again I am, you know disdainful, of the idea that you somehow should need a gun because of 2A against evil governments or because you apparently live in Somalia and criminals and police are gonna shake you down and burgle your home if you don't. Me, I think you should make sure that the baseline goal is a world wherein nobody should ever have to own, or use a gun or know someone who does and still be safe and secure from criminals and government and police brutality alike. That is what I'd expect people to strive for.
Leave the guns, then, to be a tool of recreational use at the shooting range or hunt, and for pest control by farmers. There is no need to prohibit ownership or use, but as Lemur put it so very well:
Gun ownership (and more importantly: use) should be more like car ownership: fine if you want it, but it is a privilege and not a God given right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Well, based on prior legislation, they tend to exclude weapons purchased or manufactured before the bill is signed into law. I was going to buy another one anyway, but this just made the $700 look less precious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
I can do entry level now in.223 and then, if the civilian version of the HK AR build the H&K556 with a perm-pinned stock no flash supress is released, I can upgrade. Just as long as the ban doesn't include too many new restrictions. If they target all scary looking builds I'll just get a ruger mini-14 in .223. I live in NY, so we've got years of practice living under the old assault weapons ban on a state level. 10 round mag limit here and I'm one handgun in already.
Fair point, you got me, though looking at the statistics, IEDs only caused around 66% of all casualties, so there can still be a serious amount of casualties caused by small arms fire. Also within the gun community there is a high importance of accuracy, so Id bet US rebels here would be more accurate. Though I also wonder how quickly Russia or China would jump to help arm rebels in the US with bigger and better weapons?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
As for relying on the state to protect us, that is something everyone wants, but the fact is, police response time is well over 5 minutes in most major cities, and 5 minutes is a very long time. Its sad that we must rely on arming ourselves if we want to feel safe but its the sad reality of the times we live in. If an armed attacker enters my home, I refuse to cower in my closet as I pray for the cops to arrive.
Though overall I have to overall agree with you. We do need stricter laws when it comes to guns. Banning them outright wont do jack, even if you just ban assault rifles. There are too many and how are you going to enforce it? What we do need, in addition to better mental health care, is more care devoted to tracking weapons and background checks.
I get the point and its valid, though I'd think a soldier wouldn't need a gun to subdue an attacker in close quarters, even armed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
You have an impressive admiration for soldiers and the military structure that supports them. I think that you've gotten this through fanciful pursuits. Soldiers are tough, but they are mortal men. Western Military's are easily caved, especially when they don't have the support of the civilian population that they are serving. Soldiers are also more emotionally fragile now then they have been in times past for some reason. You think of it as a big unstoppable special forces machine. There is a reason that they are called "special". It'd because they are not the norm.
Lets ignore the soldier thing for a second consider that most people arent in the military nor have military close quarters training. When I get married, and Mrs. Hooahguy is alone in the house and I was away somewhere and an intruder entered the house, Im sure she would want something substantial to defend herself with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
PTSD has been around since the dawn of time, it was just called shell shock, combat stress, and now PTSD. Soldiers in WWI had it, in WW2, in Korea, Vietnam, and so forth. Do you think soldiers in the Napoleonic Wars didnt get it? Of course they did. Everyone who was on the front lines got it in some form or another. The difference now is that such a small percentage of people in this country serve or have served, so integrating back into society is so much harder because so few people can understand what they went through, and through this lack of understanding by the civilian sector we get this "tough guys dont show emotions" routine that the military is just starting to break. In WW2 it was like 11% who went into the military? Now its something like below 1% last I heard. But dont take it from me. Ask GC or MRD.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Nonsense, rates are much higher and so are suicide rates. Explosive ordinances are much more damaging to the human brain than they have ever been. War has always been much worse than it is now, but traumatic brain injuries without death have never been as likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
That depends a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
First of all the US Army in Afghanistan and Iraq is kinda fighting a two-front war against both the rebels and the rest of the world which is watching everything they do. That creates a Level of restraint and ROI they probably wouldn't have if their tyrant master told them to massacre the insurgency at home. It's a bit like saying the german citizens in WW2 could've defended themselves with rifles and pistols against B-17s and Lancasters dropping fire bombs.
And then you have the whole terrain Thing, which became really obvious in Libya, where the rebels couldn't leave the cities because they would get utterly destroyed by tanks out in the open. And in the cities they were then shelled and assaulted as well without much room to maneuver. Now the USA are less of a desert than Libya in most parts but I'm not sure how much mobility the rebels would be able to keep.
A lot of the more successful rebellions seem to have an influx of either heavy weaponry/support from outside the country and/or military switching sides, possibly bringing heavy equipment.
And since it was mentioned that sports Shooting is one of the least valid reasons to have a gun, it's actually one of the few reasons to have a gun here in Germany. Our gun ownership level isn't really low either by the way, it is however very regulated and full of rules, requirements and regular checks.
http://p4.focus.de/img/gen/R/c/HBRcd...en_r_700xA.JPG
This table lists the number of guns per 100 citizens and the overall number of guns in the country for some countries (they list gunpolicy.org as the source but it seems to be down).
And yet the British weren't so wholesale brutal during the American Revolution. I'd imagine that in the America that we fear there would still be some level of homefront empathy and reason, even if it were under wraps to an extent. We didn't overthrow the crown because they were sending us to work camps and burning us in ovens.
You act as if artillery and ordnance is a brand new thing. Humans have been bombing the hell out of each other since gunpowder was invented.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Traumatic brain injuries doesnt equal PTSD, by the way.
I was under the impression that a causal link has been suggested all year.
All supported as by external states.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Vietnam by China but no Chinese were to be listed as combatants only observers.
Irish by America.
Afghanistan, when they were fighting the Russians they were supported by America, when they were fighting US it was Iran and most probably elements of Pakistan.
American war of independence was supported by France, Spain and the Dutch. The Contentinal Army was quickly formed and as unromantic as its appeal is, most victories on either side relied on a core of regular troops. The keeping of territories relied on the hearts and minds of the locals. So again a war was won based on how much nation state support was received and how well trained the troops were.
All were supported to some degree and the ones that succeeded had the most support.
The American Civil War the South wrongly assumed they would get European support. They did not and in the end they failed.
Um, actually I'm not under the impression the average soldier are super human or anything, just that considering that even basic trained soldiers are going to be a more capable in hand to hand than the average thief/muderer.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
May I suggest a tazer and/or mace? That way the intruder stays alive and you get an opportunity to give him several kicks in the nuts before the cops arrive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Yes, there is nuance in history and no concrete rules.
"Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association finally broke its silence to pay tribute to 26 new pairs of cold dead hands."
As the Daily Mash put it. I have no axe to grind, but that seemed quite pertinent to me.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
1) Taser: Not guaranteed to put the attacker down. Ive seen way too many videos of people needing multiple tases plus some manhandling to subdue. Plus they recover after a little while so I hope you got to cable ties handy to tie him up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
2) Mace: Will not stop a determined attacker. Its good if you need to delay the attacker so you can run, but to stop him dead in his tracks? Not good enough. In police training cops are trained to withstand mace. Also, we were at a demonstration in ROTC of MP's (military police) getting a monthly mace test. They get sprayed and have to react to certain situations to ensure they can still function without full use of their eyes. From the looks of it, some of the MP's seem to have built up something of a resistance.
Hilarious to watch though.
EDIT: Also, intimidation is half the battle. Whats more terrifying? The barrel of a shotgun or pistol, or a taser?
One or two armed people in an entire school keeping a maniac from running through rooms as quickly might do alot to lower the body count. Just making them think harder could cut it down a bit. They will probably die, but they would probably die anyway. I like the L.A. Police chief's idea of sending multiple police officers to stop by every school in the city randomly a couple times a day.
Wrong: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...16_103154.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Quote:
She noted that the U.S. government, however, rejected Seoul’s proposal to export some 600,000 M1 Carbines, which were also used in the Korean War, as they come with a magazine that can carry multiple rounds unlike the Garands.
“We plan to announce a bid later this month or in February for the selection of agencies to sell the M1 rifles to Americans,” Kim said. “The U.S. has been reviewing legal procedures for the approval of a third party transfer.”
The official said Korea plans to purchase locally developed K2 rifles with the money raised by selling the M1s.
The Obama administration blocked the purchase of 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines in 2010, saying the American-made antique rifles could “potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes.”
We do not have that view.Quote:
At any rate, I also like the rest of the article's thrust, that only a grassroots, citizen led movement similar to MADD will ever be able to change your warped societal view that gun ownership should be protected at the expense of all else.
It is extremely rational not to base legislation, and wholesale curtailing of rights, on extremely rare events. Especially when the root of the problem is mentally ill people wanting to kill a lot of people. No gun ban deals with that, which is the core issue.
It's like the TSA and their asinine policies on liquids and shoes.
Well they have, generally, bad eyesight and worse guns. Americans have fancy optics and glasses or laser eye surgery.Quote:
They certainly do not win by their superior marksmanship, discipline or the quality of their guns.
CR
Talk about a straw man. Cars provide a valid social benefit, consumable alcohol provides none. If the argument is that guns are unnecessary (which presents an incredibly slippery slope in its own right) and their use results in the occasional mass shooting, alchohol serves even less of a purpose (firearms are used every day to prevent and/or defend against crime) and certainly is the cause of millions of deaths each year, thousands of which are innocent children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catiline
Are you in favor of a return to prohibition? If not, can you explain why your concern for the lives of such children extends only the threat posed by firearms and not alcohol or other unnecessary and risky freedoms that Americans currently enjoy?
I'm not sure who you are talking about, but it surely isn't me. I supported the Bush era wars because their successful outcomes would have been in the best interests of the United States and the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. At the time, I thought a) that the repressed and abused populations of both nations would jump at the chance to form representative governments and b) that the US military was more proficient in making war than it turned out to be. So much for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Speaking of 9/11 though, why does first reaction to national tragedies always seem to be a move to restrict freedom? That applies to both US parties. I think we were all a bit naive after 9/11, but haven't we learned our lesson? Mass shootings are not a national epidemic. They do not represent an existential threat to our way of life. Are we really going to let the - yes - statistically insignificant actions of two or three mentally disturbed individuals dictate legislation that will affect millions of law abiding citizens? What an incredibly immature reaction that would be.
The idea that this tragedy requires legislative action is a fallacy in itself. While the nation has seen more mass shootings lately (ie: three) than usual, their extreme rarity should preclude any broad policy shift. Not every tragic loss of life requires the federal government to wrap society in another layer of bubble wrap. As mentioned above, if our national focus is to directed towards decreasing preventable deaths by curtailing freedoms currently enjoyed, a return to prohibition and any number of other issues should take priority. Taking aim (no pun intended) at gun ownership out of an emotional reaction to a headline grabbing, yet isolated incident is not logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I agree statistically speaking it used to be a lot more dangerous with guns. An American during the War of Independence was ten times more likely to die of a gunshot wound then a citizen of today.
In 1776 it is estimated that there was 1/100th of the population of the modern US.
8000 died on the battlefield over an eight year period.
In comparison whilst the 11,000 who died of homicides this year from guns seems a lot larger. Once you adjust for population inflation it comes down to 100 per year. Which is a mere 800 over an eight year period or just ten percent.
So the human cost for freedom is cheaper then ever. IMDHO that is the very definition of progress. ~:cheers:
Three mass shootings within 12 months is by no measure 'an extreme rarity'.Quote:
Originally Posted by PJ
No shit SherlockQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I agree with Panzer by the way, shootings like this hit hard but are very rare.
A shotgun with a tazer round?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
It's more common in the US than the rest of the western world combined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
US is a big country. I think the US and Europe taken as a whole are pretty much even. Not a statistically significant difference at least. We have had this in Norway, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, I wouldn't say it is dramatically more common in the US. A loner gone nuts, Columbine, Tech whatwasit, the Joker, and this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
WE need incidence, not prevalence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
~:smoking:
Europe has over 700 million people. The US is a lot less than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
If Americans really want the right to have loads of really dangerous weapons, and are happy with the side-effects, then fine.
I think it has more to do with being in a highly competitive society personally, all that 'be what you can be' nonsense as not everybody can be the best, becomming prom-queen and things like that, being pretty good should be more than enough to get by. I can understand why people can get lost in that, but I wouldn't blame the guns for it. More a matter of self-worthiness that is under attack for some.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
No, it's got to do with having shitloads of guns floating about the place, not not being prom queen.
Moderate alcohol consumption has plenty of social benefits. It can also cause a great deal of harm, which is why its sale and consumption are placed under a whole range of different restrictions. But alcohol isn't explicitly designed to kill people, where as hand guns and assault rifles explicitly and solely are.
There are shitloads of guns everywhere. It's a social problem people can snap when picked upon. Just this week this poor girl threw herselve before a train here in front of her classmates. A different outcome for the same problem really. She wanted to make a point. Andres made a great case here in this thread.
And what's better - snapping and jumping in fornt of a train, or snapping and going on a murderous rampage? The former is sad. the latter is evil. And it's a pernicious evil enabled by a ridiculous lie about a freedom that isn't enshrined in a 200 year old document written by people who could never imagine where we are now.
Society has all sorts of problems - the world and people in particular are not pleasant. That being the case how can it possibly be a good thing to allow people the tools to do this sort of thing, especially when those tools serve no other purpose.
We need to learn from Futurama - have proper suicide booths around the place for those seeking a Darwin Award.
~:smoking:
Well if you allready acknowledge that the problems run a little deeper them why be so comfortable on the surfaceQuote:
Originally Posted by Catiline
Far more homicides with guns than there are mass shootings. Supposedly, Chicago is more dangerous than Afghanistan. Over 200 deaths in 6 months last I heard. Yet nobody seems to really care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
Also Catiline, have you ever fired a gun before?
Well, if you're looking for the most jaw-droppingly wrong-headed reaction to the Newton massacre, you won't find it in this thread. Nope, the grand slam winner is Newsweek's Megan McArdle.
I'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once. Would it work? Would people do it? I have no idea; all I can say is that both these things would be more effective than banning rifles with pistol grips.
McArdle leaves herself some wiggle room by not directly saying she wants six- and seven-year-olds to gang-rush a mass murderer, but the implication is clear. I suppose any sociopath who wants to shoot up a kindergarten had better spend some time running calculations on this site: How many five-year-olds can you take in a fight?
Yes thanks. Not sure what that's got to do with anything, unless I'm supposed to be overcome by feeling of empowering freedom and masculine liberty when I do it. What I actually come away with is the idea that a) its fun b) it's difficult to hit what you want, and c) that the things should stay locked up at the gun club where they belong because they're bloody dangerous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
I was just wondering. The only people I know in the outside world who are as rabidly anti-gun as you are have never fired one before. The ones who were as extremely anti-gun usually end up moderating their views afterwards to a more balanced opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catiline
I think the worst I saw was one suggesting that people shouldn't grieve because infact they're weren't murdered kids, they were actually heroes who fell in the defense of liberty and freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Or 26 new pairs of cold dead hands as the Daily Mash put it - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/i...-2012121753763
Americans waddling towards a shooter, others with their hands hard on the accelerator of the mobility assists... Clearing a distance of what? 50-100m with a shooter blasting away...
Assuming that the person has ensured targets to the front and not behind (as they do choose the terrain) this person is advocating charging down someone who is firing a semi-automatic weapon directly at them.
I imagine that the limiting factor would be the amount of ammo the person carries - the greater the density of persons charging the faster the effective fire (I am assuming the average civillian would be incapacitated by shock from pretty much any wound from a high-velocity rifle).
Gun advocates stupid... who could possibly say.
~:smoking:
I'm not anti gun per se. I've got no issues with public servants, be they military or police or the like havng them. I've got no issues with hunting weapons, provided they're used with respect and kept safely. I simply think that weapons whose sole intention is to kill another human have no place in civilian society. Keep them at the gun club if you must have them.
You might be surprised. In fact I wish I had a gun because I'm awesome and all that and would use it only to do good. But then again I realize that I also have faults and it would be unfair to give one to me because I think I'm good but not to other people who think the same of themselves. As such I think it's better if we all don't have one. And yes, that's partly because I can easily see how I would casually overestimate my own prowess in handling a gun. Then again I have no education on how to handle one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
It's also nice to see that @Fragony has adopted my view after arguing against it. ~;)
As for the charging thing, it could work in the sense that fewer people may die if it's not happening on an open field, but it would require drilling stoicism into the children and turning them into some kind of mindless hive-mentality zombieforce. Of course that may help them later in their job in a sweatshop as well. ~;)
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to my constitutionally guaranteed right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catiline
if the Japanese could do it on WW2 I find it extremely offensive for you to suggest Americans are not able to do the same or better.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
'Muricah **** YEAH!
In those attacks the Americans soldiers often had qualms regarding shooting persons. Here we have someone who has set out to kill unarmed persons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
~:smoking:
Bearing in mind gun regulation during the time of the founding fathers and it clearly states about state militia, American's typically think the 2nd amendment means something other than what it actually means.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
To quote,Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
There seem to be two parts to this: the militia part and the gun-owning part.Quote:
A 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.
Now, back then, the militia was just regular townfolk like the Minutemen with no real training. And back then, there were no National Guard armories, they kept their weapons at home, so back then it would make sense for the two to go hand in hand.
Though today, well, people will interpret it as they will.
You have no expertise on the U.S. Constitution to state whether the "typical" American is correct or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
I must say that I'm rather fed up with people living across the pond telling us Americans what our own Constitution is supposed to mean.
Is the Consitution infallible?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The fallibility of the U.S. Constitution is contingent upon the will of the American people. Nothing else and nobody else matters in this regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Well based on that criteria, I suggest you get a biggerQuote:
Originally Posted by rvg
boatarsenal.
Well, it was written by Englishmen, not Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The principle in question concerns the use of Foreign mercenaries to enforce Executive power, and the mustering of troops by the elected assembly, rather than the use of Royal retainers - I don';t think there's anything in that amendment that points towards the right to form private "militias", quite the opposite.
A 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.
You should see that the point is that a citizen-army protects the state, which is not the same as an individual toppling the state.
For God's sake - if you want to have guns enforce the same rules on civilians as you do on the military.
There we go again... yet another armchair Constitutional expert has come to enlighten the savages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Our right to bear arms has been repeatedly affirmed by the highest court of the land. Your input is thus irrelevant. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
What we should really have is gender control, rather than gun control. Virtually all spree killers are men. Almost all violent crime is perpetrated by men. Therefore, less men = less violent crime.
Who's with me?
Have you ever considered that the "Right to Bear" arms is only justified and affirmed, but not defined?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I'd wager I have a better grasp of the Enlightenment philosophy that underpins your Constitution than you do.
It's defined just fine by the Federal and State laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Wager or not, paid professionals i.e. the SCotUS over the course of the centuries were very clear and very consistent on what the right to bear arms means, and what constitutes an infringement of that right. Who are you compared to those people? Who are you to contradict them? :laugh4:Quote:
I'd wager I have a better grasp of the Enlightenment philosophy that underpins your Constitution than you do.
Wow. I visited the local gun store this afternoon to pull the trigger (pun intended) on a SCAR-H, as it is the only 'modern sporting rifle' currently available on the market that I do not own and I do want to risk missing out if the authoritarians get their way. The lines were incredible. I've never seen anything like it. The gun I dropped $2500 on eight hours ago is now going for $3500 and higher on auction sites.
I'm going into South Shore Sportsman first thing to put money down on an M&P 15 tomorrow. Not a single store on LI has any AR lowers or full rifles. I don't know it will ever come in, but it's a necessity. Buy one now if you ever want one. Most stores didn't even have Ruger m-14's in stock - which are a staple.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I wish that they would just try all of these things at once. Maybe somebody would do something. Erosion of rights is the way forward for them. They'll get to that in time
Which right is specifically defined rather than merely affirmed in our bill of rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Honestly, I'd say that "Infringement" as it is meant is clearly occurring. "Act so as to limit or undermine".
People couldn't say lewd things in public at the nations foundation.
It's been clear and consistent on individual rights since 2008. It's only if you willfully misread the 2nd amendment that you can separate the right to bear arms from the well regulated militia.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
But hey, you've got a couple of handwritten versions of the clause with some wonky punctuation to go on trying to justify it, so knock yourselves out.
Well regulated from that time meant well equipped. The whole militia part (and the founders considered all adult men to be part of the militia) displays their reasoning behind the right. It is not a prerequisite (that people must be in an official state militia to bear arms) for the right. The Supreme Court of the United States agrees with me. You are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Every one of the foreigners opining on how our constitution doesn't mean what we Americans have decided, legally and as a society, it means, is wrong.
This is very true, and a point that bears repeating. The government should not be a parent, not least because it can not be. There is risk in life.Quote:
Originally Posted by PJ
Yes, some guns are designed to be effective at killing people. But if someone is trying to kill you, such a tool is exactly what you want. Guns make it much easier for people to defend themselves from acts of evil.Quote:
But alcohol isn't explicitly designed to kill people, where as hand guns and assault rifles explicitly and solely are.
Please do go on about how you better understand the legal history than SCOTUS does.Quote:
It's only if you willfully misread the 2nd amendment that you can separate the right to bear arms from the well regulated militia.
CR
Urgh.
Regulated means equipped according to rules. It doesn't mean just equipped.
It's been comprehensively demonstrated that guns simply make it much more likely you'll get shot. Statistically they don't defend you, all they do is escalate situations.
We should have one prohibition back, and that's the 'No gun debates @ .org' one.
How long would it take to get the law changed that weapons are deemed unlawful? Wouldn't it take weeks to months to get it through, signed off and even then it would have a set start date before being in effect.
Isn't it a case of drumming up artificial scarcity (a common marketing technique) to create demand and push up margins?
It's nearly Xmas Pape - don't you want a SCAR under the tree? They're running out you know.
I really don't get why people feel the need to defend the current constitutional interpretation. The originalist interpretation is is that we need people to be armed because we need a militia for protection. We don't need a militia anymore, thus we don't need to guarantee everyone a gun. That's what the damn thing says. Arguing that the right to bear arms is tied to the natural right for an individual's self defense is an argument that stands on its own. Trying to pretend that that argument is what the 2nd Amendment argues is revisionist like a vast amount of other SCOTUS rulings.
The interpretation was made to fit the current argument by pro-gun groups, not the other way around.
EDIT: You thanked this post Catiline, but I want to make this clear, this is not an anti-gun post.
It appears Americans kill as many as expected, although given the rates of killings and gun ownership are so disperate from civilised countries there is some potential for error.
The most important thing is Americans concentrate on killing each other and give the rest of the world a break.
Attachment 8237
~:smoking:
There is scarcity right now because it couldn't have come at a worse time. Most of the stores may have been sold out of these things to begin with for christmas. panzer said that he wants a gun and happened to be at a store that was packed. In ny, where I live, we have democratic assembly, democratic governor and republicans like Pete King on gun control. Act now or forever hold your peace. New legislation here will be the end of the ar15. Who knows, maybe this will kick start the economy. A lot of these sales may not have happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
You have your monarchy, we have our guns. Let's keep it that way. After all, we don't go around suggesting that you get rid of the Monarchy, even though a good rifle is far more useful than a good king.
Well that's just silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Yes, but what is being infringed - what is the right to bear arms? Is it an unrestricted right, or is it in fact a limited right? You don't think that the right to life is infringed by judicial execution, do you? Is the right to personal liberty infringed by prison?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
If they were you would consider them repugnant, but I know you don't.
Something to consider - this "Right to bear arms" does not define the type of arms borne, it can be interpreted several ways. One interpretation would be that the members of Congress and the public should not be required to surrender their swords when entering the chamber or in the presence of the President, as we are in England. Or, you could interpret it as the right to own a tank and rocket artillery.
Nope - "Well Regulated" means regularly mustered and trained by the Civil Authorities - in ~1800 the standard arm was a musket, so a militia could equip itself, more or less, provided it purchased muskets of acceptable quality and the correct bore size.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
It's also not true, at all - one good King is infinitely more valuable than one good rifle, and the Americans are always telling us we should be a Republic like them because it is teh awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I know I have suggested this here before, but since it is clear that you people can´t come to an understanding about what some strangely worded phrase from 2 centuries ago means, may I suggest that you...I don´t know.....write a new one?
sit down and write in plain English what you mean....(use pencil)
this would save a lot of time in future discussions, it is surely worth the investment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I know, a good king can be better than a good gun, even better than a good president because he has spent his entire life being trained to rule, he has his entire life to do good on his country and isn't distracted with popularity contests every 4 years, a good president has 8 years maximum to get what he wants done, spent his life learning to appeal to people instead of doing the job he's supposed to do, has to spend time working on his PR and all his efforts can be undone by enough votes by the opposition. Unfortunately for every good king there's a bad king, and a bad president can be offset and kicked out of office a lot easier. Personally I kinda wish constitutional monarchy allowed the monarch to advise parliament more, would be good to have a long term perspective to compliment the elected official's short term perspectives.
Valuable and useless. Rifles are useful. Constitutional monarchs aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Can you point out a backroom conversation where we were urging you to abolish monarchy?Quote:
and the Americans are always telling us we should be a Republic like them because it is teh awesome.
One good king can create an empire that stretched from Greece to India in under 30 years, What can one good gun do that can compare?