|
School Shooting in... Finland. 7 killed (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by ams.rld
and you are less than mediocre. Stop trying to hurt yourself. This guy did something with himself unlike you! |
haha says the guy I only remember because he asked if anyone sleeps with prostitutes in amsterdam. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by eROs.au
:wtf: |
Just as I've done in regards to the mainstream corporate media and it's ensuing barrage of both political and consumer propaganda, I've learned to separate meaningful information from that of the constant drone of worthless background noise which is always threatening to drown the truth in a sea of irrelevance. ;) |
|
|
| ams.rld |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
haha says the guy I only remember because he asked if anyone sleeps with prostitutes in amsterdam. |
Yeah, andd one of the prostitutes I slept with was your mother. She was all that I could afford. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
I definitely don't regret putting Lebezniatnikov on ignore. |
Whaa? I can understand ignoring latinloser, but lebez ain't a troll. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Me too, especially in light of the fact that we have so many historical accounts to go by which clearly state our Founding Fathers thoughts as to what it was all about. |
Yes, which is to say, certainly nothing applicable today.
| quote: | | quote: | Originally written by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29
[...]
This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. |
You have to bear in mind that until the Militia Act was passed in May of 1792 there was no organized militia, only an enrolled one. At that point in time it was still considered to be the duty of our citizens to guard our freedoms (from enemies both foreign and domestic.) If you were a legal citizen and you owned a gun, you were pretty much considered to be a part of the militia. |
So, tell me:
1. Does the prevalence of guns in homes around the United States lessen the call for federal military establishments?
2. Can the United States military be formidable to the liberties of the people in spite of our, apparently very, very large "militia?" Furthermore, is it presently?
3. Are those who bear arms in the United States little, if at all, inferior to the United States military in discipline and the use of arms?
4. Do those Bush-voting, gun-toting, militiamen stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens?
| quote: |
James Madison primarily authored the Second Amendment and he goes on to elaborate:
| quote: |
[...]
Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
[...]
|
|
5. Who are your militia officers appointed by your local government?
6. Do the arms of the citizens of the United States form an "insurmountable" barrier, or any barrier at all, against the enterprises of ambition? As a result of this barrier, are our freedoms less threatened than the freedoms of citizens in nations whose populations are far less armed?
The reality is that guns do not provide any meaningful defense against the ability of the federal government to encroach upon our rights - no matter how big our "militia" is. Nor, further, do guns in the hands of ordinary civilians enhance or contribute to the security of the free state in any way (in fact, they are probably interfering with the security of the free state in several ways). The truth is, either our rights are secure, or guns do little to secure our rights. You can't have your cake and eat it too - so which is it, friend?
| quote: | It's funny but I was just thinking the exact same thing about anyone claiming that the Second Amendment DOESN'T grant US citizens the right to own guns.
At least our Department of Justice still appears to side with gun rights advocates because they say that (via an internal memo),"The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias." |
Well, it's always a good sign when you agree with the legal opinions of the ex-Attorney General and his staff. Their reputation for non-partisan legal interpretation, protecting our individual liberties, and refusing to distort or evade constitutional protections is legendary, and I dare say your position on gun control is a stunning testament to those same values.
No doubt they'd also agree that if I were to say, "I, being rich, am going to buy a yacht," then I'm going to buy a yacht no matter what and that little thing about my being rich is a totally irrelevant preface upon which my purchasing a yacht is not at all dependent. I clearly must have thrown it in just to brag, totally oblivious to the possibility that someone might think it's related to whether or not I end up buying a yacht.
| quote: | | Also, when considering the correlation between people owning guns and people using them to kill other people, you definitely have to account for the fact that violence has been glorified here in America ever since the days of the Cowboys and Indians and will probably continue to be glorified until people take it upon themselves to reject it as a means to solve their problems. Hence, my original post stating that we need to attack the motivations which lead to violence rather than the tools which can be used to carry it out. |
Well, I agree that the prevalence of guns certainly isn't the only factor contributing to the amount of gun crimes in the U.S., but I don't think "attack[ing] the motivations which lead to violence" is ever going to be a successful enough strategy that no other restrictions are necessary. No matter how disinclined a population of individuals might be towards violence, I wouldn't entrust them all with their own weapons of mass destruction, based on the belief that they would not use them. Simply put, violent incidents will always occur - we can, and certainly ought to, strive to reduce their frequency through other means, but the more potent the weapons that those who inevitably carry out violent acts have, the higher the probability that those acts will be lethal, or the higher the body count might be. Therefore, it is in our interest that people possess the least potent weapons possible. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by ams.rld
Yeah, andd one of the prostitutes I slept with was your mother. She was all that I could afford. |
it's as I always say, if you have nothing to contribute, go ad hominem!
 |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
So, tell me:
1. Does the prevalence of guns in homes around the United States lessen the call for federal military establishments?
2. Can the United States military be formidable to the liberties of the people in spite of our, apparently very, very large "militia?" Furthermore, is it presently?
3. Are those who bear arms in the United States little, if at all, inferior to the United States military in discipline and the use of arms?
4. Do those Bush-voting, gun-toting, militiamen stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens?
5. Who are your militia officers appointed by your local government?
6. Do the arms of the citizens of the United States form an "insurmountable" barrier, or any barrier at all, against the enterprises of ambition? As a result of this barrier, are our freedoms less threatened than the freedoms of citizens in nations whose populations are far less armed? |
I'm pressed for time at the moment but rest assured that I'll get to this soon. ;) |
|
|
| George Smiley |
To be fair, the 1.5m figure isn't "lives saved" it's simply the amount of time guns have been used for "defensive purposes", but it doesn't say what they are. I doubt very much whether the majority of them actually saved lives. I would also a great number are chasing burglars off their property (and other property crimes), non of which would have had as an aim the killing of anybody... |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
One would think that given the average age of the posters here, most people would be over the "your mama" argument by now.
If not, the right place for you is the COR. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
One would think that given the average age of the posters here, most people would be over the "your mama" argument by now.
If not, the right place for you is the COR. |
Yo mamma, she so fat, she went sun bathing on the beach and Green Peace came and rescued her! |
|
|
| eROs.au |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
To be fair, the 1.5m figure isn't "lives saved" it's simply the amount of time guns have been used for "defensive purposes", but it doesn't say what they are. I doubt very much whether the majority of them actually saved lives. I would also a great number are chasing burglars off their property (and other property crimes), non of which would have had as an aim the killing of anybody... |
It's impossible to determine whether or not each of the 1.5 million cases would have ended with death without a firearm. Oh well.
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Yo mamma, she so fat, she went sun bathing on the beach and Green Peace came and rescued her! |
:stongue: |
|
|
| ams.rld |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
One would think that given the average age of the posters here, most people would be over the "your mama" argument by now.
If not, the right place for you is the COR. |
One would think that given the average age of the posters here, most people would stop being little bitches and mind their own business by now.
If not, the right place for you is the COR. |
|
|
|
|
