TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- FBI wants palm prints, eye scans, tattoo mapping
Pages (10): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 »

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I don't think private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear bombs, for example.

commie bastard

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I didn't intend this to be a gun debate thread, but I tell you what; I'll start one up in the PDD section soon so I can educate you on the subject, ok? For a man who's so concerned about world safety, I'd think you'd be better educated about how historically, Dictatorships and Totalitarian Regimes have subjugated their unarmed people and their unarmed neighbors...causing FAR more genocide and destruction than one lone criminal with a gun ever could...only once they had done away with their ability to fight back.

dont bother, that debate has been done to death. and your selective emphasis on unarmed peoples & totalitarian regimes is nonsense and trying to place cause and effect relationships where there are none.

what would make more sense was if you could give us examples of citizens that fought off their oppressive government with their personally owned firearms.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Anyone who's not an anarchist engages in selective promotion of freedom. This is a matter of degrees to me, not absolutes. I don't think private citizens should be allowed to own nuclear bombs, for example.

I'm just trying to get a feel for where you draw the line.

So what is the absolute MOST in terms of weaponry that you think a citizen should be allowed to own...I mean privately, unregistered?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN dont bother, that debate has been done to death. and your selective emphasis on unarmed peoples & totalitarian regimes is nonsense and trying to place cause and effect relationships where there are none. what would make more sense was if you could give us examples of citizens that fought off their oppressive government with their personally owned firearms.

Our own Revolution is a pretty good place to start.

Then there are examples of small groups of lightly armed citizens fighting off oppressive governments...as in the case of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising in WW2.

This article addresses some of the issues we've touched on here;

Hitler's Control

May 22, 2003, 10:50 a.m.
Hitler�s Control
The lessons of Nazi history.

By Dave Kopel & Richard Griffiths

This week's CBS miniseries Hitler: The Rise of Evil tries to explain the conditions that enabled a manifestly evil and abnormal individual to gain total power and to commit mass murder. The CBS series looks at some of the people whose flawed decisions paved the way for Hitler's psychopathic dictatorship: Hitler's mother who refused to recognize that her child was extremely disturbed and anti-social; the judge who gave Hitler a ludicrously short prison sentence after he committed high treason at the Beer Hall Putsch; President Hindenburg and the Reichstag delegates who (except for the Social Democrats) who acceded to Hitler's dictatorial Enabling Act rather than forcing a crisis (which, no matter how bad the outcome, would have been far better than Hitler being able to claim legitimate power and lead Germany toward world war).

Acquainting a new generation of television viewers with the monstrosity of Hitler is a commendable public service by CBS, for if we are serious about "Never again," then we must be serious about remembering how and why Hitler was able to accomplish what he did. Political scientist R. J. Rummel, the world's foremost scholar of the mass murders of the 20th century, estimates that the Nazis killed about 21 million people, not including war casualties. With modern technology, a modern Hitler might be able to kill even more people even more rapidly.

Indeed, right now in Zimbabwe, the Robert Mugabe tyranny is perpetrating a genocide by starvation aimed at liquidating about six million people. Mugabe is great admirer of Adolf Hitler. Mugabe's number-two man (who died last year) was Chenjerai Hunzvi, the head of Mugabe's terrorist gangs, who nicknamed himself "Hitler." One of the things that Robert Mugabe, "Hitler" Hunzvi, and Adolf Hitler all have in common is their strong and effective programs of gun control.

Simply put, if not for gun control, Hitler would not have been able to murder 21 million people. Nor would Mugabe be able to carry out his current terror program.

Writing in The Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law Stephen Halbrook demonstrates that German Jews and other German opponents of Hitler were not destined to be helpless and passive victims. (A magazine article by Halbrook offers a shorter version of the story, along with numerous photographs. Halbrook's Arizona article is also available as a chapter in the book Death by Gun Control, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.) Halbrook details how, upon assuming power, the Nazis relentlessly and ruthlessly disarmed their German opponents. The Nazis feared the Jews � many of whom were front-line veterans of World War One � so much that Jews were even disarmed of knives and old sabers.

The Nazis did not create any new firearms laws until 1938. Before then, they were able to use the Weimar Republic's gun controls to ensure that there would be no internal resistance to the Hitler regime.

In 1919, facing political and economic chaos and possible Communist revolution after Germany's defeat in the First World War, the Weimar Republic enacted the Regulation of the Council of the People's Delegates on Weapons Possession. The new law banned the civilian possession of all firearms and ammunition, and demanded their surrender "immediately."

Once the political and economic situation stabilized, the Weimar Republic created a less draconian gun-control law. The law was similar to, although somewhat milder than, the gun laws currently demanded by the American gun-control lobby.

The Weimar Law on Firearms and Ammunition required a license to engage in any type of firearm business. A special license from the police was needed to either purchase or carry a firearm. The German police were granted complete discretion to deny licenses to criminals or individuals the police deemed untrustworthy. Unlimited police discretion over citizen gun acquisition is the foundation of the "Brady II" proposal introduced by Handgun Control, Inc., (now called the Brady Campaign) in 1994.

Under the Weimar law, no license was needed to possess a firearm in the home unless the citizen owned more than five guns of a particular type or stored more than 100 cartridges. The law's requirements were more relaxed for firearms of a "hunting" or "sporting" type. Indeed, the Weimar statute was the world's first gun law to create a formal distinction between sporting and non-sporting firearms. On the issues of home gun possession and sporting guns, the Weimar law was not as stringent as the current Massachusetts gun law, or some of modern proposals supported by American gun-control lobbyists.

Significantly, the Weimar law required the registration of most lawfully owned firearms, as do the laws of some American states. In Germany, the Weimar registration program law provided the information which the Nazis needed to disarm the Jews and others considered untrustworthy.

The Nazi disarmament campaign that began as soon as Hitler assumed power in 1933. While some genocidal governments (such as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia) dispensed with lawmaking, the Nazi government followed the German predilection for the creation of large volumes of written rules and regulations. Yet it was not until March 1938 (the same month that Hitler annexed Austria in the Anschluss) that the Nazis created their own Weapons Law. The new law formalized what had been the policy imposed by Hitler using the Weimar Law: Jews were prohibited from any involvement in any firearm business.

On November 9, 1938, the Nazis launched the Kristallnacht, pogrom, and unarmed Jews all over Germany were attacked by government-sponsored mobs. In conjunction with Kristallnacht, the government used the administrative authority of the 1938 Weapons Law to require immediate Jewish surrender of all firearms and edged weapons, and to mandate a sentence of death or 20 years in a concentration camp for any violation.

Even after 1938, the German gun laws were not prohibitory. They simply gave the government enough information and enough discretion to ensure that victims inside Germany would not be able to fight back.

Under the Hitler regime, the Germans had created a superbly trained and very large military � the most powerful military the world had ever seen until then. Man-for-man, the Nazis had greater combat effectiveness than every other army in World War II, and were finally defeated because of the overwhelming size of the Allied armies and the immensely larger economic resources of the Allies.

Despite having an extremely powerful army, the Nazis still feared the civilian possession of firearms by hostile civilians. Events in 1943 proved that the fear was not mere paranoia. As knowledge of the death camps leaked out, determined Jews rose up in arms in Tuchin, Warsaw, Bialystok, Vilna, and elsewhere. Jews also joined partisan armies in Eastern Europe in large numbers, and amazingly, even organized escapes and revolts in the killing centers of Treblinka and Auschwitz. There are many books which recount these heroic stories of resistance. Yuri Suhl's They Fought Back (1967) is a good summary showing that hundreds of thousands of Jews did fight. The book Escape from Sobibor and the eponymous movie (1987) tell the amazing story how Russian Jewish prisoners of war organized a revolt that permanently destroyed one of the main death camps.

It took the Nazis months to destroy the Jews who rose up in the Warsaw ghetto, who at first were armed with only a few firearms that had been purchased on the black market, stolen or obtained from the Polish underground.

Halbrook contends that the history of Germany might have been changed if more of its citizens had been armed, and if the right to bear arms had been enshrined it Germany's culture and constitution. Halbrook points out that while resistance took place in many parts of occupied Europe, there was almost no resistance in Germany itself, because the Nazis had enjoyed years in which they could enforce the gun laws to ensure that no potential opponent of the regime had the means to resist.

No one can foresee with certainty which countries will succumb to genocidal dictatorship. Germany under the Weimar Republic was a democracy in a nation with a very long history of much greater tolerance for Jews than existed in France, England, or Russia, or almost anywhere else. Zimbabwe's current gun laws were created when the nation was the British colony of Rhodesia, and the authors of those laws did not know that the laws would one day be enforced by an African Hitler bent on mass extermination.

One never knows if one will need a fire extinguisher. Many people go their whole lives without needing to use a fire extinguisher, and most people never need firearms to resist genocide. But if you don't prepare to have a life-saving tool on hand during an unexpected emergency, then you and your family may not survive.

In the book Children of the Flames, Auschwitz survivor Menashe Lorinczi recounts what happened when the Soviet army liberated the camp: the Russians disarmed the SS guards. Then, two emaciated Jewish inmates, now armed with guns taken from the SS, systematically exacted their revenge on a large formation of SS men. The disarmed SS passively accepted their fate. After Lorinczi moved to Israel, he was often asked by other Israelis why the Jews had not fought back against the Germans. He replied that many Jews did fight. He then recalled the sudden change in the behavior of the Jews and the Germans at Auschwitz, once the Russian army's new "gun control" policy changed who had the guns there: "And today, when I am asked that question, I tell people it doesn't matter whether you're Hungarian, Polish, Jewish, or German: If you don't have a gun, you have nothing."

�Richard Griffiths is a doctor of psychology with research interest in gun issues. Dave Kopel is a NRO contributing editor.


I hope that helped you get a clue Raisin.

And if it didn't, I could really care less, because you have no voting power over here.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I'm just trying to get a feel for where you draw the line. So what is the absolute MOST in terms of weaponry that you think a citizen should be allowed to own...I mean privately, unregistered?

Any semi-automatic, non-explosive weapon.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Any semi-automatic, non-explosive weapon.

EDIT;

Sorry, mis-read your post.

So why not fully automatic weapons? Too much firepower?

When the right to bear arms was guaranteed, flint-locks were the modern weapons of their day. The idea was to put the average citizen on an equal footing with anything a standing army might be able to throw at them (and actually, that included artillery, explosives, etc.) Now, we are no longer the equals of our standing army, not by a long shot.

So given that there are more and more calls for disarming the average citizen, wouldn't you say that you have, historically, already been in support of a "slippery slope" of eroding freedoms?

Automatic weapons are outlawed. Any weapon off the shelf has to be semi or single action. If a weapon is modified to fully auto, its also against the law. However, an 18 year old can buy an AK-47 or AR-15 with a 30 round clip off the shelf in my state, but cannot purchase a .22 or .38 caliber handgun. Doesn't make a buncha sense, but them's the rules.


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN nah, you think im left coz youre so far right. im much more centrist.

Just curious to see what your views are on the following subjects:

-Abortion
-Gay marriage
-Gun rights
-Affirmative action/Racial preferences in jobs/university entrances
-Separation of church and state (For example, leaving the word "God" out of the US pledge of allegiance, or banning the world "Christmas" in "Merry Christmas" and instead saying "Happy Holidays").

quote:

Originally posted by Nostalgic Just curious to see what your views are on the following subjects: -Abortion -Gay marriage -Gun rights -Affirmative action/Racial preferences in jobs/university entrances -Separation of church and state (For example, leaving the word "God" out of the US pledge of allegiance, or banning the world "Christmas" in "Merry Christmas" and instead saying "Happy Holidays").

Please, spare us the pain. Cut to the quick and teach him how to pull a trigger on himself.


[[[smoke]]]

Smokeape, why do you bother posting here? What do you get out of it?

So...

Extremely efficient surveillance, in combination with extensive gun control, renders the general population virtually helpless and easy to control.

Anybody disagree? Why?

Oh nevermind, government is to be fully trusted and not questioned, after all, they know what they're doing right! Its not like any governments have stepped way out of line with their extensive powers in history

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Smokeape, why do you bother posting here? What do you get out of it?

About as much as you do.

What's in it for you?


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape About as much as you do. What's in it for you? [[[smoke]]]

I enjoy chilling out with a bunch of (mostly) funny people, and having a laugh. The occasional decent conversation pops up quite a bit, which is also cool. And, of course, the musical side of the site, which is an interest of mine.

This doesn't sound much like your endevours around here, though, does it?

So, again - What do you get out of it?

quote:

Originally posted by Elec ... Its not like any governments have stepped way out of line with their extensive powers in history

That is kind of my point. I always find it interesting that the same people who don't trust their government ALSO don't trust their own neighbors to be armed, so that they might prevent these Orwellian doomsday scenarios.

MJBJ is worried about the "slippery slope" of human I.D.-ing, whereas I'm trying to point out to him that I think he's willing to engage in selective loss of rights on certain issues (like the right to bear arms, which is the only REAL thing that ensures his other rights when all are ignored or abolished in am Orwellian world), while worrying about the loss of other privacy rights to excess by comparison.

I don't see how one can be willing to say; "I'm ok with the government knowing that I have a fully automatic weapon at home, but I'm not ok with them knowing who I am"?

Makes no sense, both logistically and theoretically.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Our own Revolution is a pretty good place to start.

um, yeah. because your average joe was what beat back great britian don't kid yourself.

i only got as far as this:

quote:

Simply put, if not for gun control, Hitler would not have been able to murder 21 million people. Nor would Mugabe be able to carry out his current terror program.

which is just the stupidest load of crap ive read this week. if that's what your gun lobby thinks then im not surprised there are retards with guns all over your country. i mean, do you REALLY subscribe to such a stupid idea?

as for the warsaw uprisings, you tell me what influence they would have had on the mightiest military in the world had it not actually been fighting other great powers? im gonna guess kind've how the branch davidians did.

are you REALLY telling me you think the citizenry is your country is a real balance against the mightiest military power the world has ever known? give me a break. its ridiculous.

so, again. i ask you to provide me with an example of a citizen militia that has resisted the power of the liberal democratic state with their guns. at best, those fighting the state get butchered, at worst there's a protracted civil war and loads of civilians get killed.

either way, there's absolutely no reason to believe that the right to bear arms in the US has ANY notable effects on the powers and behaviours of your government(s) and the idea is only popular amongst people like trancer x

quote:

Originally posted by Nostalgic Just curious to see what your views are on the following subjects: -Abortion

for.

quote:

Originally posted by Nostalgic -Gay marriage

for.

quote:

Originally posted by Nostalgic -Gun rights

against, outside what is necessary for pest control or those that use firearms in gun clubs.

quote:

Originally posted by Nostalgic -Affirmative action/Racial preferences in jobs/university entrances

that's a tricky one. i'll abstain coz i can see both sides, i dont bother arguing unless there's a specific test case and the merits can be judged on their own.

quote:

Originally posted by Nostalgic -Separation of church and state

people's unprovable beliefs have no place in the public sphere, let alone politics and the state.

quote:

Originally posted by Nostalgic (For example, leaving the word "God" out of the US pledge of allegiance, or banning the world "Christmas" in "Merry Christmas" and instead saying "Happy Holidays").

FYI those ^^ really are meaningless and irrelevant to the real discussions concerning church and state.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco That is kind of my point. I always find it interesting that the same people who don't trust their government ALSO don't trust their own neighbors to be armed, so that they might prevent these Orwellian doomsday scenarios. MJBJ is worried about the "slippery slope" of human I.D.-ing, whereas I'm trying to point out to him that I think he's willing to engage in selective loss of rights on certain issues (like the right to bear arms, which is the only REAL thing that ensures his other rights when all are ignored or abolished in am Orwellian world), while worrying about the loss of other privacy rights to excess by comparison. I don't see how one can be willing to say; "I'm ok with the government knowing that I have a fully automatic weapon at home, but I'm not ok with them knowing who I am"? Makes no sense, both logistically and theoretically.

what i find really amusing is someone like you that defends the bush admin's every move, or supports the FBI's database plans, then wants the populace to be armed to protect itself from these authorities. how do you reconcile that?

i would like ANY of you blinded americans to give me an example of the right to bear arms protecting you from the state in the last 100 years. you know, like it did david koresh

arbiter is the man.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The cherry-picking of the second amendment really irks me. I mean, all it says is arms - that can be anything from a knife to a nuclear warhead. Now it either means we can't infringe upon people's right to bear any of those arms, or it just means we can't infringe upon the right to bear at least one of them. There's no valid middle ground where you can say that if guns are banned but people are still allowed to bear swords, spears, bows and arrows, and the like, then their rights are being denied and yet say that if we then allowed guns, but not nukes, they wouldn't be denied. Not to mention the fact that, if the second amendment were intended to provide an unqualified right to bear arms, then the amendment itself would not have been qualified "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." I'd go so far as to say that anyone claiming that the second amendment grants US citizens the right to own guns is someone that I could never trust with the constitution, since they are either incapable of performing basic tasks of reading and drawing reasonable inferences from what they read, or they are willfully distorting its meaning for whatever nefarious purpose they have in mind. My personal point of view is that people can posit whatever hypothetical scenarios regarding how banning guns might advantage criminals by impairing the ability of people to defend themselves, but the truth is that reality is unsurprisingly out of synch with their harebrained rationalizations, as those countries which have either banned or seriously restricted firearm ownership do not suffer from any of the adverse effects that it is claimed we would necessarily suffer if we were to impose similar restrictions. And I'd say the fact that this particular incident took place in a country with high gun ownership serves to reinforce the apparently hard-to-stomach correlation between people owning guns and people using them to kill other people.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN um, yeah. because your average joe was what beat back great britian don't kid yourself. i only got as far as this: which is just the stupidest load of crap ive read this week. if that's what your gun lobby thinks then im not surprised there are retards with guns all over your country. i mean, do you REALLY subscribe to such a stupid idea? as for the warsaw uprisings, you tell me what influence they would have had on the mightiest military in the world had it not actually been fighting other great powers? im gonna guess kind've how the branch davidians did. are you REALLY telling me you think the citizenry is your country is a real balance against the mightiest military power the world has ever known? give me a break. its ridiculous. so, again. i ask you to provide me with an example of a citizen militia that has resisted the power of the liberal democratic state with their guns. at best, those fighting the state get butchered, at worst there's a protracted civil war and loads of civilians get killed. either way, there's absolutely no reason to believe that the right to bear arms in the US has ANY notable effects on the powers and behaviours of your government(s) and the idea is only popular amongst people like trancer x

lol@you trying to associate me with the paranoid, Trancer.

Anyway...

That HANDFUL of Jews held off HUNDREDS of Germans for quite awhile. So did the Branch Davidians, now that you mention them. Extremists they were, in my mind, but not in theirs. And to many Government Leaders in this country, what happened at Waco was one of the darkest travesties in our country's history, because it was NOT necessary to go in like that and try to disarm them to make a point...and it was perhaps even a prime example of why we have the right to bear arms; In order to keep the government from trying to squash our freedoms of expression (that's how the Davidian's saw it anyway).

You want examples of how lightly armed peoples can tie down the "world's largest military"? Just look at what's happening to us in Iraq right now.

Are you aware that Switzerland REQUIRES every home to have an Assault Rifle in it? It's how they stay "neutral". It's the "Speak softly, but carry a big stick" adage, and it works! Who would want to invade a country where the populace is armed to the teeth?

Don't you think that if the Jews had all been armed in WW2, that many more of them might have had a different destiny, other than the one Hitler dictated for them...powerless at the hands of their oppressors? How about the defenseless Rwandans who were hacked to death and shot by the millions?

So your answer to your own government possibly one day becoming a Dictatorship and trying to enslave you (why not? It's happened to the best of modern countries throughout history), would be to ban together in a circle and sing songs of peace and love? Good luck with that!! LOL!!

Like I said; I don't care if you want to turn a blind eye to learning about the need for ALL citizens of the world to bear arms, because at least as far as this country goes, you have no voting rights, so converting you doesn't concern me. But you know me well enough to know that I DEPLORE conspiracy theorists, and to at least respect my positions on issues enough to not dismiss them so flippantly.

You are doing a dis-service to yourself, both ethically and morally, when you chose to debate like this. It's your loss, in more ways than one, when you do.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN what i find really amusing is someone like you that defends the bush admin's every move, or supports the FBI's database plans, then wants the populace to be armed to protect itself from these authorities. how do you reconcile that?

lol...you know that's not true. I don't defend their every move. But I don't blame them for every problem out there either, as many of the more liberal element likes to do. I see them being forced in to certain situations that any Democratic Administration might not have been able to react any differently in, would it have happened on their watch.

But I guess part of the reason that I'm not too worried about "1984" is because as long as we have the 2nd Am. right, we'll never get to the point where we have to worry about these perceived Dictatorships or Totalitarianisms taking over in our country.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ...i would like ANY of you blinded americans to give me an example of the right to bear arms protecting you from the state in the last 100 years...

We've never had a Dictatorship try to take over in our country. Just because it hasn't happened "in the past 100 years" doesn't mean that we should throw out our one true protection against it EVER happening. That's REALLY a weak argument.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco lol@you trying to associate me with the paranoid, Trancer. Anyway... That HANDFUL of Jews held off HUNDREDS of Germans for quite awhile. So did the Branch Davidians, now that you mention them. Extremists they were, in my mind, but not in theirs. And to many Government Leaders in this country, what happened at Waco was one of the darkest travesties in our country's history, because it was NOT necessary to go in like that and try to disarm them to make a point...and it was perhaps even a prime example of why we have the right to bear arms; In order to keep the government from trying to squash our freedoms of expression (that's how the Davidian's saw it anyway). You want examples of how lightly armed peoples can tie down the "world's largest military"? Just look at what's happening to us in Iraq right now. Are you aware that Switzerland REQUIRES every home to have an Assault Rifle in it? It's how they stay "neutral". It's the "Speak softly, but carry a big stick" adage, and it works! Who would want to invade a country where the populace is armed to the teeth? Don't you think that if the Jews had all been armed in WW2, that many more of them might have had a different destiny, other than the one Hitler dictated for them...powerless at the hands of their oppressors? How about the defenseless Rwandans who were hacked to death and shot by the millions? So your answer to your own government possibly one day becoming a Dictatorship and trying to enslave you (why not? It's happened to the best of modern countries throughout history), would be to ban together in a circle and sing songs of peace and love? Good luck with that!! LOL!! Like I said; I don't care if you want to turn a blind eye to learning about the need for ALL citizens of the world to bear arms, because at least as far as this country goes, you have no voting rights, so converting you doesn't concern me. But you know me well enough to know that I DEPLORE conspiracy theorists, and to at least respect my positions on issues enough to not dismiss them so flippantly. You are doing a dis-service to yourself, both ethically and morally, when you chose to debate like this. It's your loss, in more ways than one, when you do.

Yes! pkc, basically what you are saying is "its hopeless to stand up to governments so just give and give in to whatever comes"
And I was about to mention Iraq too in this case.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco lol@you trying to associate me with the paranoid, Trancer.

well, ive had exactly the same argument with him.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco That HANDFUL of Jews held off HUNDREDS of Germans for quite awhile.

again, in the midst of a global war, it is reasonably easy for a small band of people to prove problematic for a greater force. but, since we are talking about the US and the 2nd amendment, and the US is far from the third reich (despite what trancer might think) and is at peace in the homeland, i cant see how you think it is possible.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco So did the Branch Davidians, now that you mention them.

that's just wrong. the branch davidians didnt "hold" anyone off. the ATF & FBI deliberately held off, no doubt for PR reasons, not to mention the number of children in the complex. they could've stormed that place with a riot tank anytime they wanted, but (shock horror!) the state often goes to incredible lengths NOT to harm its citizens.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Extremists they were, in my mind, but not in theirs.

which is exactly the point. i dont trust your average moronic person with the latest technology for stealing life. im sorry, too many fucktards in the world, as evidenced by your MASSIVE firearm homicide rate each year.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco And to many Government Leaders in this country, what happened at Waco was one of the darkest travesties in our country's history, because it was NOT necessary to go in like that and try to disarm them to make a point...and it was perhaps even a prime example of why we have the right to bear arms; In order to keep the government from trying to squash our freedoms of expression (that's how the Davidian's saw it anyway).

its all in the outcomes mate, the right to bear arms did exactly jack shit to prevent the government from making (rightly or wrongly) the choice to storm the building. so again, how exactly is the 2nd amendment proving safety from the government??

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco You want examples of how lightly armed peoples can tie down the "world's largest military"? Just look at what's happening to us in Iraq right now.

NO. that's NOT what i said donny, and you know it. i want to know how it can DEFEND against the state. as far as i know (and forgive me if im wrong) the US still occupies iraq, and israel still occupies the west bank. restraint exercised on behalf of the US state is not the same thing as the right to bear arms protecting you from the army, the ATF, the FBI, SWAT etc etc etc.

also, i think you'll find IEDs have had a far greater impact than snipers. do you support the right to bear explosives?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Are you aware that Switzerland REQUIRES every home to have an Assault Rifle in it? It's how they stay "neutral". It's the "Speak softly, but carry a big stick" adage, and it works! Who would want to invade a country where the populace is armed to the teeth?

yes, and switzerland has a comparatively high firearm homicide rate too. and last time i checked, 5.56 or 7.62 rounds dont do a helluva lot to tanks or aircraft

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Don't you think that if the Jews had all been armed in WW2, that many more of them might have had a different destiny, other than the one Hitler dictated for them...powerless at the hands of their oppressors?

no, i think the suggestion is absurd, considering the might of the nazi military at the time. and anyway, for the parallel to be even remotely relevant, you would have to argue that the US today is similar to nazi germany. are you really going to try that?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco How about the defenseless Rwandans who were hacked to death and shot by the millions?

right. so the hutus, instead of butchering the tutsis with machetes, would have used AK47s instead. what's your point? and again, even if firearms could have made a POSITIVE difference, the US isnt fucking rwanda for christ's sake. weren't you the one trumpeting the virtues of the american state re the judiciary etc?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco So your answer to your own government possibly one day becoming a Dictatorship and trying to enslave you (why not?

nope. would never ever happen. supporting the very real costs of civilian armament for some fanciful notion that is so far outside the bounds of possibility isnt particularly honest imo.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco It's happened to the best of modern countries throughout history),

name a modern liberal democracy (like the US or Oz) that has done so. again, we're talking about the 2nd amendment, you need to use examples that you can relate to the US.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Like I said; I don't care if you want to turn a blind eye to learning about the need for ALL citizens of the world to bear arms, because at least as far as this country goes, you have no voting rights, so converting you doesn't concern me. But you know me well enough to know that I DEPLORE conspiracy theorists, and to at least respect my positions on issues enough to not dismiss them so flippantly.

but you sound just like them! while i think your current administration is an absolute disgrace, i cannot, for the life of me,

1 - envisage the US becoming a totalitarian state
2 - believe your gang-bangers on street corners are going to trouble the mightiest military ever tot grace the face of the earth
3 - support putting such weapons in the hands of cockheads everywhere for some imagined enemy that could kill you all if it wanted to anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN arbiter is the man.

quote:

quote: ...Not to mention the fact that, if the second amendment were intended to provide an unqualified right to bear arms, then the amendment itself would not have been qualified "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." I'd go so far as to say that anyone claiming that the second amendment grants US citizens the right to own guns is someone that I could never trust with the constitution, since they are either incapable of performing basic tasks of reading and drawing reasonable inferences from what they read, or they are willfully distorting its meaning for whatever nefarious purpose they have in mind.

LOL! Well THANK GOD he's not sitting on the Supreme Court then!

Talk about "cherry-picking"! Court after Court has held that either way you slice it, the word "people", as in "...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", refers to the average citizen. It's an individual right. As are ANY of the times when the Constitution refers to the rights of "the people".

"Well regulated", as the phrase was interpreted back then, meant "well organized"...it DIDN'T mean "regulated" by the government. My god, just what do you think we were fighting for in the Revolution; More oppression?!?

So we have the right to organize militias if we see fit, in order to over-throw our own government if we ever see fit, assuming that there are enough of us on the same page (which by default, would then put the just cause on the side of the majority).

This is basic stuff. Our Constitution over-all is more about protecting us from your own government than it is about anything.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco But I guess part of the reason that I'm not too worried about "1984" is because as long as we have the 2nd Am. right, we'll never get to the point where we have to worry about these perceived Dictatorships or Totalitarianisms taking over in our country.

yeah. its not the rest of the constitution, nor the bill of rights that prevents that. nor the courts, nor the parliamentary system, nor MASSIVE power and influence of business. its the second amendment. right.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco We've never had a Dictatorship try to take over in our country. Just because it hasn't happened "in the past 100 years" doesn't mean that we should throw out our one true protection against it EVER happening. That's REALLY a weak argument.

no, not at all. youre creating a fictitious (and incredibly unlikely) possibility to justify something. THAT's the weak argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Elec Yes! pkc, basically what you are saying is "its hopeless to stand up to governments so just give and give in to whatever comes"

are you actually going to man-up and contribute here, or is empty rhetoric and shitty (erroneous) analysis your idea of a proper discussion? get a clue and provide proper argument or shut the fuck up with your nonsensical diatribes.

i bet youre a 911 troofer.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco LOL! Well THANK GOD he's not sitting on the Supreme Court then! Talk about "cherry-picking"! Court after Court has held that either way you slice it, the word "people", as in "...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", refers to the average citizen. It's an individual right. As are ANY of the times when the Constitution refers to the rights of "the people". "Well regulated", as the phrase was interpreted back then, meant "well organized"...it DIDN'T mean "regulated" by the government.

so, perhaps you could tell me how the gun ownership of average joe even comes close to "well regulated militia". it is obvious, at least to me, that this implies some form of organisation, which personal ownership obviously isnt.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.