Outlawing guns in the US ...

Should the US Federal Constitution's Second Amendment be overturned?

  • Yes, I want to bypass Constitutional process and directly overturn with simple majority

    Votes: 29 10.2%
  • Yes, I want it overturned with Constitutional process and super-majority

    Votes: 30 10.6%
  • Indifferent, but it should only be overturned with Constitutional process and super-majority

    Votes: 8 2.8%
  • No, but I'd accept it if overturned with Constitutional process and super-majority

    Votes: 21 7.4%
  • No, and I don't think any Amendments of the [i]Bill of Rights[/i] should ever be repealed

    Votes: 186 65.5%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 10 3.5%

  • Total voters
    284
That ar 15 is nice and so is that chick ;) but I wonder if she could shoot a target with a m1a1 over 800m distance with the heaviest loads.

I wonder if I could... actually, no I don't. I know the odds are slim. I've shot a friends M1A1 and I wasn't impressed. I'm not a big fan of .308. I'm far more efficient with an AR15/M16. Kinda like a surgeon doesn't use a chainsaw to make and incision... ;)
 
There's a AK in my local paper right now for $750.00 :wtf: If I could just get to Africa... save me some $700 dollars :D I did'nt even know they were still legal in the US.
 
Just thought I would throw out some quantitative analysis

Crime is the crime rate as measured as the number of crimes committed per 100,000 people.

Guns is given as a measure of the level of gun legislation, a high value indicating stricter gun control laws and a lower score signifying low control or control that is poorly enforced.

State Crime Guns
Alabama 4465 -3
Alaska 4310 -8
Arizona 6386 -1
Arkansas 4158 -5
California 3944 53
Colorado 4348 4
Connecticut 2997 50
Delaware 3939 2
Florida 5421 6
Georgia 4507 -5
Hawaii 6044 71
Idaho 3173 -3
Illinois 4016 35
Indiana 3750 -1
Iowa 3448 18
Kansas 4087 -2
Kentucky 2903 -6
Louisiana 5098 -8
Maine 2656 -18
Maryland 4747 43
Massachusetts 3094 76
Michigan 3874 15
Minnesota 3535 16
Mississippi 4159 -2
Missouri 4602 15
Montana 3513 -6
Nebraska 4257 6
Nevada 4498 0
New Hampshire 2220 0
New Jersey 3024 35
New Mexico 5078 1
New York 2804 27
North Carolina 4721 18
North Dakota 2406 -5
Ohio 4107 4
Oklahoma 4743 -4
Oregon 4868 1
Pennsylvania 2841 2
Rhode Island 3589 18
South Carolina 5297 17
South Dakota 2279 -3
Tennessee 5019 1
Texas 5190 -6
Utah 4452 0
Vermont 2530 -5
Virginia 3140 6
Washington 5107 8
West Virginia 2515 -3
Wisconsin 3253 3
Wyoming 3581 -4

Results of the regression are as follows:

Unweighted Least Squares Linear Regression of Crime

Predictor
Variables Coefficient Std Error T P
Constant 3943.68 155.524 25.36 0.0000
Guns 3.33095 7.08642 0.47 0.6405

R-Squared 0.0046 Resid. Mean Square (MSE) 1003284
Adjusted R-Squared -0.0162 Standard Deviation 1001.64

Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 221669 221669 0.22 0.6405
Residual 48 4.816E+07 1003284
Total 49 4.838E+07

Cases Included 50 Missing Cases 0

The R^2 value is 0.0046. This indicates that there is no correlation. The F value also indicates that we cannot conclude a regression relationship between crime rates and gun control.

Sources:
Crime rates
Gun Control Laws
 
There's a AK in my local paper right now for $750.00 :wtf: If I could just get to Africa... save me some $700 dollars :D I did'nt even know they were still legal in the US.

What state?
Whoever listed it is either really stupid, trying to bait someone to making an illegal purchase, or didn't mention the sale would need to be conducted through a dealer... unless the guy has a license to sell.
 
I wonder if I could... actually, no I don't. I know the odds are slim. I've shot a friends M1A1 and I wasn't impressed. I'm not a big fan of .308. I'm far more efficient with an AR15/M16. Kinda like a surgeon doesn't use a chainsaw to make and incision... ;)

I like the m16 but I would take a galil sar in 308 auto with a nimrod scope over it. The 308 is making bigger damage and is much more accurante efficent than the 7.62*53r russian ammo used in the dragunov. I have a m1a1super match at my uncle's home, with proper ammo like the black hills or imi ammo, trust me sub moa accuracy is off the box.
 
In confusing times, people cling to dusty documents because they don't know where to turn. It's like a religion.

Let's do a poll that includes all the Americans that can't afford computers and don't have time to look at porn. The ones whose kids are frisked each morning for guns. And let's ask them if guns should be outlawed. Or if there should be healthcare for all. And if dusty documents that prevent them getting rid of those gunshots they hear every night, should be untouchable.

Just remember that your precious UN and the rights it is stated to believe in will in short order be just something on just another "dusty document". People don't cling to those beliefs because they are some document. They are the basis of what makes people free. They are the rights bestowed to people by nature. Maybe that's why they cling to them. What would be more stupid is to let people passions and emotions of the moment override forethought just because it's a little more convenient for them at the time. It's not because it's a document. The document just affirms the recognition of what everybody has always had since the beginning of time. The "document" never "gave" them anything. It just recognized the rights existence that has always existed.


As for McRocket I'm really interested in why you think some of those Amendment, especially any in our Bill of Rights would even need to be changed. It isn't like Slavery was just something that started being wrong in the world 300 years ago. If it happens again in 100 years because people thoughts change it will be no more right than it was before that. It was always wrong. It wasn't like the right to religion and free speech was a natural right starting 200 years ago, it was the right people have had since humanities inception in my opinion. The same could be said for not being tortured, and having your property seized for no good reason, or being searched without cause. So considering those are rights that make people free in the first place and are basic elements of what a free society is why would they need to be changed...ever.


None of that is considering that the only thing that makes us free and ensures it is the right to be armed and to properly fight back against tyranny of other people and even our own government or people. It sure as hell isn't the vote we cast. It's laughable that anybody actually believes that. It never was and it's even worse now since the people they choose for us to vote for gets worse all the time. The Second Amendment is the keeper of the rest of them and the rest of our rights. It doesn't bother me that Europeans are either stupid enough or have been brainwashed enough to think that their governments, (who they know are filled with corrupt people and who complain about them just as much as we do) are always going to be benevolent to them. You would think that after all this time, after generations and generations of tearing itself apart and after all that history of most of the people being subjects there they would have learned. I don't know. Maybe you guys just like it over there where you are subjects to be virtually owned by others maybe to someday be owned literally by them again. It is in your cultured to be owned by the people at the top after all. Do you like that? I like being a free man. America has its faults but at least that's one think about us I'm proud of. Every year, every generation we get more spineless. We are starting to become a country of pussies that are too apathetic to what the people in charge do (maybe we are starting to take after Europeans), but still there are still people out there, shrinking in number, that refuse to be anything other than a free man. Live Free or Die isn't just a saying to them. They really believe that if you can't live free you might as well not live at all. All life looses meaning otherwise.

As far as everybody else, when the time comes and people want to take that freedom way you have now, and as long as humanity exists there will always...ALWAYS be another time, take solace in the fact that you can always go and crawl under a rock somewhere. Or maybe you can throw a few rocks at the tanks they bring against you. Don't fool yourself into believing that "your" army will never ever do such a thing. Time changes, people change. Just ask the people in China, North Korea, and a lot of other places around the world what their army is willing to do to it's own people. I refuse not to be free. I plan to take as many of those people as I can when that time comes, and if it doesn't come in my lifetime then I will train my future children and grandchildren to do the same in preparation for that time and they will in turn teach their decedents. I will not be shackled either literally or metaphorically. I might not even win. At least I will have hope though. I'm not psychic, I don't know the future, but at least I know that I will force them to kill me. I will at the very least be able to die a death of my own choosing. That's a lot more than a lot of the people around the world can say for themselves. They will get done to them whatever the hell the people in power want.
 

member987

Closed Account
Time changes, people change. Just ask the people in China, North Korea, and a lot of other places around the world what their army is willing to do to it's own people... They will get done to them whatever the hell the people in power want.


Case in point Burma/Union of Myanmar:

http://www.witness.org/index.php?option=com_rightsalert&Itemid=178&task=view&alert_id=53

If Burma had a "second amendment" these atrocities would never have occured. But, then I guess some think these actions are o.k. since the citizens are disarmed.

My vote is: No, and I don't think any Amendments of the Bill of Rights should ever be repealed.

^ best option given, imo.
 
...America has its faults but at least that's one think about us I'm proud of. Every year, every generation we get more spineless. We are starting to become a country of pussies that are too apathetic to what the people in charge do...


Facetious posted this link a little while back in another thread (BTW, thanks bro). I think it speaks volumes about the current state of America. It also pertains to your post:

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

"From bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to apathy;
from apathy to dependence;
from dependency back again into bondage."

http://www.wrisley.com/cycle.htm

Hmmm, sounds like a country we know...:(
 
As long as the moderators don't ask/tell/order me to do otherwise, I will use any word or terminology to describe another member's online actions anytime I feel like it.
Just as you can.
Have a nice day.
I started this thread with a different intent, and I wanted to remind people that statements can lead to people just tuning you out.
Why? Because it's not about what you can or can't say, but it's about how you step back and look at the viewpoints from a perspective that may be different than your own.

I am an extremely capable consultant because I look at things from other perspectives, many non-American, on-behalf of non-US corporations.
In fact, my only barrier is my current language fluency, which I'm becoming very proactive in changing, because it's limiting my opportunities which exist outside the US.

In confusing times, people cling to dusty documents because they don't know where to turn. It's like a religion.
Oh man, best joke of the day! "Dusty Documents"?

No offense, but the people behind those documents weren't "smart."
They were just very "well read," because they pulled virtually all of those ideas from hundreds of people over hundreds of years.

The foundation of the United States is largely due to the brilliance of British, French and many other nationals.
And our continued balance is because we took those ideas, and set them against each other.

Ironically, the most highly regarding portion of our government by many nations, especially for the time, was the institution most removed from the people.
Because when you make it about nothing but majority rule, you get genocide and civil war.

But freedom of speech is limited in the media,
The US has virtually the only absolute and free press at all levels of anyone in the world.
It is not state funded, misguided, yes, duped at times, oh hell yes, but not state controlled at all.

I dare you to even point to another!

and we are illegally invading and murdering people.
Do you know why people tune you out?
It's because you call anyone you disagree with as bigots and murders and xenophobes and the like.

If you really want to "change the world," you don't do it by bashing anyone and everyone.
You start by relating to people and understanding how and why they think the way you do.

As I've suggested many times, I recommend you start with the writings of Ben Franklin.
From there, move into the foundations of American civics, which begin in Europe and move through the Federalist Papers and on-ward.

Until then, you're simplified views of the world are rather disregarded by many as "here me, but I don't hear you."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like the m16 but I would take a galil sar in 308 auto with a nimrod scope over it. The 308 is making bigger damage and is much more accurante efficent than the 7.62*53r russian ammo used in the dragunov. I have a m1a1super match at my uncle's home, with proper ammo like the black hills or imi ammo, trust me sub moa accuracy is off the box.

I had a G3 clone (SAR-8) which was a decent gun, I just didn't like how difficult it was to take the bolt apart. I had a Remington 700 PSS and it was a fun gun but I wasn't very accurate on it and I didn't have the time to put into getting good with it. I'm pretty good with the M16 platform having 11 years of experience with it in the Army. That's the logic behind my position. Anything is accurate if you train on it enough... and if you're accurate then the size of the bullet doesn't make too much difference as long as you can put it where you want it.
 
American != Global, maintain context when I use it!

How many times must it be shown on how many threads: the US is ranked between 25 and 55 on every international "free press list".
Then ...
A) What are the criteria of that evaluation?, and ...
B) Show some links to back up this claim

I have defined mine: a press/media not state funded.
Very simple, you get 98% of useless dribble most of the time, but it serves its purpose.
I have yet to find a press/media that is not state funded or controlled.

In fact, they only get shut down, and it's not merely because they have ties to western nations.
As most everyone told Chavez, "why didn't you replace one independent media with a more favorable, but still independent media?"
There are plenty of independent, non-US, non-EU, non-western media outlets, but they are typically not allowed, ironically, outside of western nations (or Internet), even if they are anti-western in general.

Oh the irony of that!

The US has one of the least free presses of all western nations. End of story. That is well known everywhere.
Again ...
A) Define that statement, and ...
B) Give us some links!

I define a free press/media as not government funded or controlled.
I don't know any nation where virtually all of its press/media is not government funded or controlled outside of the US, the UK and select others in decreasing percentage.

The fact that you don't know this kind of illustrates why I don't read the books you tell me to.
Because wherever you got your ideas from - they really haven't given you a picture of the way the whole world works.
I got most of my knowledge from travelling on 4 continents, working (sometimes illegally) in various countries, being homeless, and of course, going to University both in England and USA
Top free press nations I think are... Iceland... Denmark... Sweden... Norway... Ireland... and a bunch of others.
You're having 2 different arguments, one global, one American.
That's just argumentative instead of maintaining the context under discussion.

I don't tell you to read books on American civics to understand the world anymore than I tell non-Americans to read American civics books.
American books on civics don't apply to other forms of government just as much as your views from ignorance apply to how American civics are enacted as law you must follow as a citizen!
I tell you to read books on American civics so your ideas won't be laughed at because they are against the organization of our government!

Fox, understand nearly 100% of what you want to do would take a revolution!
In other words, it would require you to get the public to invalidate our "Old Documents" as you call them.
You are professing that you are "smarter than the collective wisdom of centuries prior to the American government."

Which is why your statements are laughable and you will never get more than a minority to agree with you, sans one exception.
Given the declining literacy rate in this nation, it is entirely plausable that you will be able to stage a Marxist like "grassroots effort" based on the same ignorance and lack of caring to understand the American government you sport.
And then you will have your revolution. ;)

Duped? That's a joke. Don't buy into that. That's how America has become the world's superpower. By pretending to be benevolent but stupid, rather than... ruthless and manipulative and brilliant. The leaders, I mean.

Since neither of us have changed the world in any major ways, I don't think you're in a position to tell me how best to change the world.
Not "change the world"
You said you want to change the US, you can start by understanding how it works.
Until then, you are an utter joke of a citizen (of which I wish you could see otherwise, as you have fair views on women and people in general).
You cannot sit here and lecture people on "what is right" without stopping to realize "just what this 'big illusion; the supermajority of Americans must have."

It's called the American government, and it's based on a set of balances that prevent the people from destroying the nation.
Because the nation is about people, for people, and people left unchecked can quickly undue their own rights, not realizing until it's too late.
This includes the current, on-going issues with this administration, just like the ones before it.

Everything is challenged, everything is put under due process, and many actions, law and other decisions are often ruled "Unconstitutional."
And the only way to keep the US Court from ruling things as "Unconstitutional" is to put an idea under due process and get a supermajority of the American people to agree it needs to be changed.

Because simple majority changes on a whim, due process, supermajorities, rule of law, and a dynamic, but still slowly moving Constitution only sees changes when a lot of people agree over a good amount of time that something is important.

Last line: very hypocritical. I have never changed my point of view because of anything you, or the other board libertarians (4 or 5 of you), have said. That's true. But none of you have ever changed your point of view because of what I have said. So we're in the same boat. Just because I don't agree with a word you say politically doesn't mean I don't hear you. You talk a lot, but I usually read it. Always if it's directed at me or relavant to a discussion I'm participating in. A lot of people tune you out too. Trust me. A lotof people tune politics out in general. But I have changed my point of view from talking to others. Just not you. I think that's why you think I don't listen. Because I have never agreed with (basically) any of your politik. So on your end it looks like, "agree, or thou art an ignorant fool who does not listen", touche. And I won't discuss this with you anymore. If you really want your thread to stick to certain lines of discussion, why stray from them?
I'm telling you that as long as you don't stop to even remotely understand the American government, you will continue to be dumbfounded why a super-majority DISAGREE with you.
It is also why you will never be elected to any significant office and you will never get anything changed.
You are an ignorant citizen who does not value all of the rule of law that protects you from everyone else.

And you don't remotely understand why this nation is very, very different from the other nations you come from.
A nation that would not remotely tolerate your speech, yet our nation at every level, not only allows, but entitles you to share.
 

McRocket

Banned
I started this thread. While I'm not going to state opinions here, just some considerations.

You called **********:

- 'an utter joke of a citizen'
- 'an ignorant citizen'
- 'your statements are laughable'

Are those not opinions?


And BTW, I would take BBC, CBC or PBS government funded news services over CNN, Fox or any other private US network news service in a heart beat for intelligent, relatively unbiased news reporting.

As for McRocket I'm really interested in why you think some of those Amendment, especially any in our Bill of Rights would even need to be changed.

I did not type that they need to be changed (other then the 2'nd Amendment - and that was in a different thread).

My objection was that so many people are typing that all the Amendments should never be changed. One can never predict the future, so to type that something should never be changed no matter what is, IMO, short sighted.





And BTW on a totally unrelated subject - Can someone recommend a simple online punctuation program? And let me emphasize simple.
44 years old and I still am not sure where to put commas and all the other punctuations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And that was another Amendment ...

I voted to follow existing Constitutional protocol and work to overturn it.
Which is a very responsible and doable viewpoint.
I don't think some people realize that the Supreme Court would argue differently with a lot of people in this thread.
Even though I think differently, we both agree on what avenue must be taken for our viewpoints, or how we would have our viewpoints overridden.
This due process is "not optional," it is the ultimate law of the land, and the Supreme Court would enforce such.

As a compromise, I'd like to ban "possession" of guns in big cities.
There is the continuing argument/counter-argument on what local and state rights can override those of the federal.
In general, if it's ...

A) A right that the local/state and trying to deny, and ...
B) It is a Constitutional Law

The federal always wins.
In other words, it's a "Civil Right" ... literally, and I'm not being argumentative, just pointing out the obvious. ;)

Possession is not ownership. This country thought "Prohibition" was a good idea, then when we realized our mistake, we overturned it. I'd like to see the same thing happen with possession of firearms in "big cities" (cities with pop. 60,000+).
There are many local and state laws that do address this, required permits for possession outside of the home.

This is not the first part of the Constitution I'd like to "re-address." I think the part of the Freedom of Speech which talks about "petitioning government" needs to be removed from Amendment 1 and addressed in a separate Amendment. The right to petition government has evolved away from what the Founding Fathers wanted (protection from speaking out against Gov't) and, in turn, it's been used by Lobbyists to poison our government.
As with countless other "rights."
At the same time, remember my argument about the media -- even if you get 98% non-sense for 2% of a required right, it's a necessary evil.

As "Tom Wilkinson" stated in My Blue Heaven (paraphrased), "I'm exactly the person Thomas Jefferson wrote it for, I'm the worst incarnation of his dream."
In other words, abuses not only happen, but the Founding Fathers were well aware they could be the rule, not the exception.

But the abused rule must continue to protect the needed exception.

The access and power of Lobbyists is the single greatest threat to our Democratic Republic.
I think there is a worse, greater detail than that.
I think the single greatest thread is continued legislation on ethics and rules.
I think if they would require 100% disclosure, but allowed everything, then the American public would be far better informed.
The problem right now is that nearly all legislation of ethics and rules leaves gaping loopholes, and doesn't require disclosure in many cases.

There needed to be a "militia" because there weren't enough soldiers to form a competent army.
At the time of the Revolution..we had to import French fighters and we had to hire Germans to train our militias and our Soldiers.
Er, no to the first (they were a clear minority, just like current "contractors" in Iraq), but yes to the second.
At the same time, that is only a small part of the 2nd Amendment.

One of the worst "offenses" that the Crown committed against the Colonies was "Quartering Troops." This was a financial savings for the Crown but it also was a way for the King to keep his fist on the necks of the Colonials. If you're housing troops you're not likely to muster a militia.
Actually, that was specifically addressed in yet another of the Amendments of the Bill of Rights[/b].
Why? Because the 2nd Amendment was not written to address it, but to complement it.

I honestly hope people would read and understand why there are Ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights, not just two.
The fourth and many others are key rights that people not only take for granted, but cause many laws to be ruled Unconstitutional at times. ;)

Today...we have no need for a Militia because we are under ZERO THREAT of being invaded by ground forces. We are under different "threats" and really WWIII is likely to be a ballistic missile war and a chemical war...
Then you haven't read Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, among others.
If you think that's why they wrote the 2nd Amendment, you should read up their own words on why.

Militias are not about "planned" wars, they are about citizens protecting themselves, including during wars quite unplanned.
People will survive holocausts, they always do, and they have a right to protect themselves today for it.
Among the countless other rights to protect themselves, which differ none at all from the viewpoints of Franklin, Jefferson, etc...

Just like man ideas that were presented 200-300 years before the American nation, the American nation is founded on ideas that still apply 200-300 years later. ;)
People just assume people 200-300 years later, they didn't think and they don't apply, which is incorrect.

Just like Sir Issac Newton didn't know a thing about electricity and didn't realize the properties of photons of light didn't keep him from founding equations that are at the heart of electrical engineering as much as mechanical.
In the same regard, if Einstein was alive today, he'd be rebuking the "ignorant, popular environmentalist" American public (and even many scientists) with the same theories he won the Nobel Prize for (and no, it wasn't relativity -- although he fought the majority of scientists on relativity as well, hence why he didn't win the Nobel Prize for that).
 
Fact ...

You called **********:
- 'an utter joke of a citizen'
- 'an ignorant citizen'
- 'your statements are laughable'
Are those not opinions?
Nope!
To openly profess you refuse to learn any details of the organization of a country's basic foundations and design of government is ...

- being a joke of a citizen
- being an ignorant citizen
- being a person who makes laughable statements

You cannot be ignorant of the basic foundations of law of a country and taken seriously in that country.
You could quite be the authority in another nation, but to ignore a government's organization while trying to change it, to disregard it's centuries in foundation before and after, is to destroy the same protections it affords you.

Fact.

Governments can and should be changed under the due process it affords.
That is not merely just responsible or intelligent, it's taking advantage of the protections it gives to everyone.
It makes no one person more important than another, including the realities that the government is based on those before you, and not the "whim of today."

How many citizens in how many nations have forsaken their own rights only to wish otherwise and unable to change?
Here in the US, we have due process, and it protects us from every Congress and Executive who thinks they can interpret things differently.
And that includes many things going on now, just like 10 years ago, just like 10 years before that, etc...

And BTW, I would take BBC, CBC or PBS government funded news services over CNN, Fox or any other private US network news service in a heart beat for intelligent, relatively unbiased news reporting.
I never said otherwise!

I virtually watch only PBS news in the US, because it's far more intelligent than CNN, Fox or any private US network as well.
I stated that 98% of the time, private US networks are unintelligent dribble and laughable.
They are catering to their advertising audience, of which is less than 25% of Americans, those who watch 8+ hours of TV.

But it's that 2% of what they do, that PBS will never, that keeps us free. ;)
Again, the US media is one of those "necessary evils" that I hate, but support their existence.
Because they keep me free, far more free than government funded or run media.
 

McRocket

Banned
Re: Fact ...

Nope!
To openly profess you refuse to learn any details of the organization of a country's basic foundations and design of government is ...

- being a joke of a citizen
- being an ignorant citizen
- being a person who makes laughable statements

You cannot be ignorant of the basic foundations of law of a country and taken seriously in that country.
You could quite be the authority in another nation, but to ignore a government's organization while trying to change it, to disregard it's centuries in foundation before and after, is to destroy the same protections it affords you.

Fact.

None of the above are facts. They cannot be facts unless you have access to his mind - which I assume you do not.
Those statements you made about him were strictly your opinions about him.

You typed you would not make opinions. And you did.

It's good I am here to point these things out - isn't it? ;)
 
Re: Fact ...

None of the above are facts. They cannot be facts unless you have access to his mind - which I assume you do not.
What part of "openly admitted" do you not understand?
He stated he has no interest in reading or understanding anything about the American government and its design.
He just wants to bypass it all and change it, which is a fruitless endeavor as he will never be able to.
Majority can do anything of what he wants to do, period, it's impossible, end of story.
Fact.
 

McRocket

Banned
Re: Fact ...

What part of "openly admitted" do you not understand?
He stated he has no interest in reading or understanding anything about the American government and its design.
He just wants to bypass it all and change it, which is a fruitless endeavor as he will never be able to.
Majority can do anything of what he wants to do, period, it's impossible, end of story.
Fact.

He openly admitted to being a 'joke of a citizen'? Funny, I didn't read that part.

You made opinions about him, pure and simple.

I am trying to help you. If you are going to make statements about your posting policies in a thread you start and then go against them; then some people may not take your posts as seriously as they would otherwise.


Anyway, this is straying into territory that should be handled in pm's.
 
How about getting back to the topic. Take your side-bar debates to PM's and sort out your differences in private. at this point you guys are just cluttering up the works.


Quote:
Originally Posted by titsrock View Post
Today...we have no need for a Militia because we are under ZERO THREAT of being invaded by ground forces. We are under different "threats" and really WWIII is likely to be a ballistic missile war and a chemical war...
Then you haven't read Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, among others.
If you think that's why they wrote the 2nd Amendment, you should read up their own words on why.

Militias are not about "planned" wars, they are about citizens protecting themselves, including during wars quite unplanned.
People will survive holocausts, they always do, and they have a right to protect themselves today for it.
Among the countless other rights to protect themselves, which differ none at all from the viewpoints of Franklin, Jefferson, etc...

Right on. It's not about people arming themselves in the event they need to form a militia to defend against outside invasions, but more to protect against the government growing beyond the control of the people it's intended to serve and turning on those people.

Problem is, how do you know when it's gotten to that point and how do you organize in order to bring it down when there are so many systems in place by the government in order to prevent any potential uprising against it... in the name of "national defense". As far as I can tell we've already allowed the government to grown beyond our control because they have the power to turn us against one another by using the media to spin the situation from "a militia formed to put the government back in its place" to "terrorists trying to destroy the infrastructure of this country". Everything is just too gray to figure out who's trying to help and who's trying to hurt us.
 

McRocket

Banned
How about getting back to the topic. Take your side-bar debates to PM's and sort out your differences in private. at this point you guys are just cluttering up the works.




Right on. It's not about people arming themselves in the event they need to form a militia to defend against outside invasions, but more to protect against the government growing beyond the control of the people it's intended to serve and turning on those people.

Problem is, how do you know when it's gotten to that point and how do you organize in order to bring it down when there are so many systems in place by the government in order to prevent any potential uprising against it... in the name of "national defense". As far as I can tell we've already allowed the government to grown beyond our control because they have the power to turn us against one another by using the media to spin the situation from "a militia formed to put the government back in its place" to "terrorists trying to destroy the infrastructure of this country". Everything is just too gray to figure out who's trying to help and who's trying to hurt us.


You and others like you that believe this sound paranoid - no offense.

And besides (as I have mentioned in another thread), you are going to stop GPS guided bomb equipped, B2 stealth bombers flying at 30,000 feet with rifles?

If your government wants you dead and can find you - your dead.
 
How about getting back to the topic. Take your side-bar debates to PM's and sort out your differences in private. at this point you guys are just cluttering up the works.




Right on. It's not about people arming themselves in the event they need to form a militia to defend against outside invasions, but more to protect against the government growing beyond the control of the people it's intended to serve and turning on those people.

Problem is, how do you know when it's gotten to that point and how do you organize in order to bring it down when there are so many systems in place by the government in order to prevent any potential uprising against it... in the name of "national defense". As far as I can tell we've already allowed the government to grown beyond our control because they have the power to turn us against one another by using the media to spin the situation from "a militia formed to put the government back in its place" to "terrorists trying to destroy the infrastructure of this country". Everything is just too gray to figure out who's trying to help and who's trying to hurt us.

That's the big question.You have those who think you have too much government living next door to people who think government doesn't go far enough.The idea that universal gun ownership will protect you against a government which some think goes too far is wishful thinking and dangerous wishful thinking at that because it implies civil war.Of course you could have a splendid civil war thanks to the Second Amendment but as I said in an earlier post I don't think the architects of the Amendment were thinking along those lines.Probably they had in mind the return of the British.
"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."
This reads loud and clear to me that the Amendment is really about the security of the state and the right to bear arms is simply one of the tools.
 
Top